Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "Zetetic Cosmogony; Or, Conclusive Evidence that the World is Not a Rotating-revolving-globe, But ..."

See other formats


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on Hbrary shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http : //books . google . com/| 

iVfc. . JTe/wJ.]^ QA^,-...iA*im/riC'^..-,,-- - 

^^r ^^^H^^^^^H 





■ \. 









Conclusive Evidence 





By '^ rectangle:' 

• - » 


- - " . .• 



* • . • • 

• *» • • , 



. " -• "* 




^ 1900 

* % * 


Since the first edition of this work — an unpretentious 
pamphlet of 48 pages — was pubHshed, so much interest 
in the subject has been manifested, that a second 
edition is without doubt called for. In fact, long after 
the first edition was exhausted, letters from various 
parts of the world, were received, asking for copies, 
which, to our regret, could not be supplied. 

In that pamphlet very much of the evidence we 
had accumulated from various sources had to be 
omitted, so as to reduce what otherwise would have 
been a bulky volume to a short treatise ; retaining 
sufficient evidence to convince the minds of those who 
would take cognizance of and duly estimate proved 
facts of nature. Our labours have not been in vain. 
Many have been enabled to see through the delusions 
of modern astronomy. Letters from- various parts 
testify that, in some cases, men and women have begun 
to make use of their brain-power, which had been 
stunted and dwarfed by acceptation, without the 
slightest proof, of the unscientific, unreasonable, un- 
natural, and infidel teachings of men foisted upon a 
credulous public in the name of *' Science." Others 
again, tell that the writers have thrown to the moles 
and to the bats the world-wide axvd ^\rcvo^\. ^5LmN^\^•^!:^:^^- 
believed hoax that we are living oxv ^ ^\v\\\\xv^ ^^'^^-^'^^''^^ 


globe, revolving faster than a cannon-ball travels, 
rushing through ** space ''at a rate beyond human 
power to conceive, and flying — with the whole of the 
so-called solar-system — in another direction twenty 
times the speed of its rotation. 

To the Editors of newspapers, who, whether 
favourably or unfavourably, reviewed the pamphlet, our 
thanks are due, and now respectfully tendered. 

This edition is sent forth with the assurance of the 
Divine blessing and the firm conviction that TRUTH 


12, Castle Buildings, 
Durban, Natal, 
South Africa, 

November^ i9>gg 


It will be noticed that the style of this volume differs 
-considerably from the first edition. In that edition we divided 
the book into four parts, viz. : Scientific Assertions, Bible 
Statements, Natural Proofs, and Application and Conclusion, 

The first of these was covered by extracts from well- 
known astronomical works ; the second was filled with Bib] 
quotations, the direct opposite of the astronomical speculi 
tions; the third division contained many proofs of the impos- 
sibility of the truth of the globe theory ; the last division be- 
ing made up of the logical arguments founded on the first three. 

For convenience of reference we have arranged the 
present edition alphabetically. 

In this way any particular branch of the subject 
found without looking up the index, and something new li 
found on every page, 

Briefl}-, modern astronomical teaching affirms that 
world we live on is a globe, which rotates, revolves, and spti 
away in space at brain-reeling rates of speed ; that the si 
is a million and a-half times the size of the earth-globe, ai 

[nearly a hundred million miles distant from it ; Jthat the 
is about a quarter the size of the earth ; that it receives all il 
light fi-om the sun, and is thils only a reflector, and not 3 
giver, of light ; that it attracts the body of the earth and thus 
causes the tidesjjthat the stars are worlds and suns, some of 
them equal in importance to our own sun himself, and others 
vastly his superior; that these worlds, inhabited by sentient 
beings, are without numbers and occupy space boundless in 
extent and illimitable in duratioi-; the whole of these inter- 
laced bodies being subject to, and supported by, universal 
gravitation, the foundation and father of the whole fabric. 

To fanciful minds and theoretical speculators, the so- 
called "science" of modern astronomy furnishes a field, un- 
surpassed in any science for the unrestrained license 
of ihe imagination, and the building up of a complicated 
conjuration of absurdities such as to overawe the simpleton 
and make him gape with wonder ; to deceive even those who 
truly believe their assumptions to be facts, and to "make 
men doubt Divine Revelation with as little discrimination as 
they were formerly called upon to believe," 

If the reader will carefully iollow and weigh the evidence 
in the following chapters, he cannot fail to be delivered from 
the thraldom of popular credulity and led to seek the truth 
' limself. _^m 


Current science declares that the earth was once shot off 
im the sun ; a piece of molten rock, which, by universal 
Taction became larger, "by indraughts from without," as 
the late R. A. Proctor assures us. This molten mass took 
350,000,000 years to cool down for protoplasm to efet 
a footing, which took millions of years "by evolution and 
selection" to produce a Darwinian ape. Evolution and selec- 
tion allied to and combined with "the survival of the'" 
again took many millions of years to evolve "primeval" man 
many ages again elapsing before historical man was produced^ 
There are four " bodies," according to the late R. A. 
Proctor, which represent four stages of wImi we may term 
astronomical progression, as follow : — 

1. The moon was once inhabited, but is now a chaotic 

2. The eiirih is inhabited. It was once like the planet 
Jupiter. Earlier still it was like the sun, and will become 
like the moon now is. 

3. Jupiter was once like the sun. It is being prepared 
for inhabitants. When inhabited it will be like the earth. 
When its race as an inhabited world has been run, it will be- 
come like the moon. 

4, The sun will become like Jupiter,' and another .sun will 
have taken itsplaceifVI-aterit will become like the" earth, and 
will then be inhabited. Later still it will become chaotic 
like the moon ; and so on for countless ages, in fact for ever. 

What a grand conception ! Yea, rather, what a grand 
perversion of the reasoning powers, and what stultification of 
common-sense. What an abuse of precious gifts in order to 
satisfy a fertile imagination, and supply idle curiosity with 
something new in the "domain of science." 

No one who reads the Bible but can see how these un- 
founded speculations are diametrically opposed to its plain 
teaching. The science of the nineteenth century, and the 
science of the Bible are totally at variance. If the one be 
true, the other is necessarily false. Which is it: Let the 
evidence here placed before the reader answer the question. 
Let honest-minded men and women who read these pages 
learn the truth for themselves by practical investigation into 
the facts herein set forth, which we challenge the whole 
scientific world to successfiilly dispute. 

We court no favour and fear no foe, scientific or other- 
wise. All we ask is careful attention and practical investi- 
gation ; we have no fear as to the logical conclusion which. 
.11 be arrived at. .1 

^^^11 b 


Assumptions ... 3 

Age of the Earth 4 

Aeronautics ... 7 

Contraats 8 

Contradictions ii 

Circumnavigation i8 

Curvature 2i 

Canals a3 

Disappearance of Ships 34 

Distances 28 

Fluids 3' 

Figure of the Earth 33 

Growth of the Earth 35 

Gravitation 3^ 

Geology 4^ 

Horizon, The 5^ 

Level On the Term 50 

Lighthouses 58 

Midnight Sun, The 62 

Motions of the Earth 64 

Moon, The 70 

Moon, Eclipses of the 74 

Magnetism ■ ■■. 83 

Navigation 86 

Pendulum, The 99 

Plurality of Worlds, The lOi 

Planets, The HH 

Parallel Lines. On 105 

Railways 'o? 

Ridicule J 10 

Sun, The "* 

Sun's Distance 113 

Sun's Diameter 119 

Stars, The lao 

Star Distances 121 

Seasoii's, The 124 

Signals "5 

Surveying 136 

Science "6 

Tides, The lag 

Ultimate Conclusion, The 131 


Earth an Iirej^ulur Plane 153 

Evolution '54 

New Scripturus, The 155 

Truth will Ciini|uer 157 

Glory of God, The 'SO 

How Old is the Earth ? i<i2 

Our Earth Motionless ... 167 

Vindication of the Divine Cosmogony 185 


Introduction. — ist Page, line i6 from bottom, for nu?nbers 
read number. 

Page 5. — Line 13 from bottom, for in its btst dress we are 
read m its best dresSy we are &c. 

Page 19. — -Begin 2nd line from bottom with will tell you and 
commence last line with the world is a globe. 

Page 31. — Line 20 from top, for salute read statute. 

Page 73. — Line 23 from top, iov place redid places. 

Page 104. — Bottom line, for ever thing read everything. 

Page 1 13. — Line 2 from bottom, for i86g read I^6g. 

Page 141. — Line 5 from bottom, for supply read apply. 

Page 1 65. — Line 6 from top, for 50 read 500. 

Page 183. — Line 12 from bottom, for gigantic an numerous 
read gigantic and numerous. 






In order to account for natural phenomena in keeping 
with the assertions of the learned, many hypotheses have to 
be laid down, and many unfounded assumptions are abso- 
lutely necessary to support the unsound fabric of astronomical 

In " Modern Science and Modern Thought," by S. Laing, 
the following occurs on page 51 : — 

" What is the material universe composed of ? Ether, 
Matter, and Energy. Ether is not actually known to us by any 
test of which the senses can take cognizance, but it is a sort 
of mathematical substance WHICH WE ARE COMPELLED 
TO ASSUME IN ORDER TO ACCOUNT for the phenomena 
of light and heat." 

Whatever explanation may be furnished regarding light 
and heat on this basis, must be discarded as utterly untrust- 
worthy, because the premises are assumed. 

Once upon a time it was stated that " the stars were 
motionless," but as soon as assumption was allowed to talk, 
the scene was changed, for, as Science Sif lings informs us 
(Vol. 6, page 39J, 

"as soon as it was CONJECTURED that the stars were 
subject to the law of gravitation, it was inferred that they were 
not motionless." 

Professor Huxley had to resort to assumption to account 
for the disappearance of ships at sea, although had he known 
the truth of the matter, or taken the trouble to enquire, his 
unwarranted assumptions would have beeu xoX-^XV^ Mvcevfe'^^'s.- 

He says : 

" We assume the convexity of the water, because we know 
of no other way to explain the appearance and disappearance of 
ships at sea.'* 

What learning ! What profound wisdom ! If we " know 
of no other way " it is better to admit the fact and wait until 
we " have found out some other way " to explain the diffi- 
culty, if there is any. Knowledge is gained by practical 
investigation and experience, and has no need of the assist- 
ance of assumption to provide an excuse for ignorance. If 
water could be proved to be convex, there would be no need 
to assume it to be so. We should have many proofs and 
abundant evidence of the fact. But the fact that water has 
been proved to be level, hundredsof times, makes it. necessary 
for those who refuse to believe proved facts which tell against 
their theory, to resort to assumption to maintain their un- 
reasoning position. And yet this same Professor, in his book 
** Science and Culture " says 

" the assertion which outstrips evidence is not only a blunder 
but a crime." 

The assertion, therefore, that water is convex against 
proof furnished many times over that it is level, is not only a 
blunder, but a crime. 


This is a subject which has been much speculated upon. 
I shall quote a few of the more prominent assumptions. Sir 
Robert Ball, in his "Story of the Heavens," pages 169 and 
1 70, tells us that 

** We cannot pretend to know how many thousands of 
millions of years ago this epoch was, but we may be sure that 
earlier still the earth was even hotter, until at length we seem to 
see the temperature increase to a red heat, from a red heat we 
look back to a still earlier age when the earth was white hot, back 
again till we find the surface of our now solid globe was 

But imagination goes still further than this. In " Our 
place among Infinities," by R. A. Proctor, pages 9 and 10, 
we find the following : — 

'* Let it suffice that we recognise as one of the earliest stages 

of our earth's history, her condition as a rotating MASS OF 

GLOWING VAPOUR, capturing t\xeti as ixo^n, >d\x\. lax mot^ 

actively then than now, masses of nialttr which approach) 
near enough, and growing by these continuat indraughts fi 
How we are to " recognise " that the earth was once 
rotating mass of vapour, we are not told. On what evideni 
the recognition rests, is not stated. Perhaps it is not too 
much to assume that this is like most other assumptions of 
the a&tronomical schools, without the slightest vestige of 
possibility, to say nothing of probability. Sir R. Ball tells us 
that " we may be sure " that the earth was once " actually 
molten"; but on what provable data the "surety" of this 
"actuality" rests we are left to the foggy mazes of imagina- 
tion to discover. But imagination, assisted by assumption, 
will account for anything, and so we are told that it " took 
350,000,000 years for the earth to cool down from a tempera- 
ture of 2,000 centigrade to 200." Proctor says that Bischof 
has shown this, aud so we ought to be sure enough. Wen 
similar ridiculous statements made in relation to any othei^ 
science than Astronomy or Geology, I believe the general 
reader would dismiss them at sight. But because they are 
made in a " domain of science " where the general reader, in 
most cases, cannot lollow, they are allowed to pass as the 
genuine product of learning and investigation ; whereas they 
are at best but wild and utterly impossible theories. In 
" Modern Science and Modern Thought," page 44, we are 
informed that 
[ "It is right, however, to stale that ALL MATHEMATl- 




^^^^Thus, after all the labour to establish a theory, allied 
' with much skill in setting it forth, in its best dress, we are 
calmly assured that all these tall figures and imaginations 
are based on premises which are in the highest degree un- 
certain ! If evidence for rejecting these fanciful hypotheses 
summarily and i"« fy/a were wanting, surely it is now furnished 
to .satisfaction. Not only are these " mathematical calcula- 
tions" of assumed premises, "in the highest degree uncertain," 
but they are to be classed with the tomfooleries of the age, 
and reckoned among the many and impossible absurdities of 
the present day. 

One of the chief of recent speculations regarding the 
earth, is that it is a body like the planets, beca-use, v'^ t.a.-!i 
shovF-n that the sun and the sxais a.ta q^ \!cvft ^^wv-s. '^■^"iv 

stituent parts as the earth. Iron, Salt, &c., are said to be 
elements of the sun's composition, and as the earth contains 
these and other minerals, it is a globe or planet like the other 
heavenly bodies which contain the same metals. What is 
known as 


is relied upon as proving this. A prism is placed in position 
so as to intercept the sun's rays, and the colours seen through 
this instrument, red, orange, yellow, blue, are said to be the 
result of the various metals contained in the sun in a state erf 
fusion, emitting their several colours in the combined sun. 
light, which total light is decomposed into its component 
colours by the prism. 

With the object of testing the conclusions arrived at by 
the learned relative to spectrum analysis, several experiments 
were made by the writer. The light of the sun on a clear 
day, about noon, seen through the prism disclosed the various 
colours that can be seen through this instrument. On a hazy 
day before sunset the colours seen were the same but very 
faint. Light from a lighthouse and a star seen through the 
prism, showed the colours to be the same, the colour from 
the light of the star being much less brilliant than that from 
the lighthouse. Light from a parafine street lamp gave the 
same result as light from a star or the sun, only much fainter. 
Then the electric light was tried. A large street lamp of 
great power and several others of less power gave the same 
result as the sun, star, lighthouse, and street lamp, but in 
various degrees of brilliancy according to the power of the 
light. Even a candle gave a very faint yellow-blue tinge, so 
slight that it had to be looked at for some time before any- 
thing but blue was apparent. 

If, therefore, it be argued that spectrum analysis proves 
that the sun is made of the same metals as we find in the 
earth, and that, therefore, the earth is a product of evolution 
then it is equally clear that the electric light and the glass 
shade of the lamp which encases it are really composed of 
iron and various other mrtals in a state of fusion, constituting 
indeed, a globe of glowing vapour, and not glass, carbon, 
&Cm at all. It is also as reasonable to conclude that the 
paraffine lamp and tli(j candle are composad of metals in a 
state of fusion and that there is in reality no paraffine, no 
Tlass, no tallow, and no wick. That is to say, known facts 
aU8t be thrown aside, common*sense stultified, and reason 

dethroned in order to bolster up the unprovable assumptions 
of modern science relative to the doctrine of evolution 
as applied to the earth and the heavenly bodies. 


If the world be a ball, as Sir R. Ball gravely informs us, 
the aeronaut should be one of his most ardent supporters, as 
the highest part of the ** surface of the globe " would be 
directly under the car of a balloon, and the sides would fall 
away or '* dip " down in every direction. The universal 
testimony of aeronauts, however, is entirely against the 
globular assumption, as the following quotations show. The 
London Journal oi i8th July, 1857, says: — 


** The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon at a con- 
siderable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained 
practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two 
miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead 
of convex, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the 
horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationary." 

J. Glaisher, F.R.S., in his work, " Travels in the Air," 
^-^tates : ** On looking over the top of the car, the horizon 
'i appeared to be on a level with the eye, and taking a grand 
view of the whole visible area beneath, I was struck with its 
great regularity ; all was dwarfed to one plane ; it seemed 
too flat, too even, apparently artificial." In his accounts of 
his ascents in the air, M Camilla Flammarion states : " The 
earth appeared as one immense plane richly decorated with 
ever-varied colours ; hills and valleys are all passed over 
without being able to distinguish any undulation in the 
immense plane." 

Mr. Elliott, an American aeronaut, says : " I don't know 
that I ever hinted heretofore that the aeronaut may well be 
the most sceptical man about the rotundity of the earth. 
Philosophy forces the truth upon us ; but the view of the 
earth from the elevation of a balloon is that of an immense 
terrestrial basin, the deeper part of which is directly under 
one's feet. — Zetetic Astrono^ny, Page 37. 

In March, 1897, I met M. Victor Emanuel, and asked 
him to give me an idea ot the shape of the earth as seen from 
a balloon. He informed me that, instead of the earth 
declining from the view on either side, and the higher part 
being under the car, as is popularly supposed, it was the exact 
opposite ; the lowest part, like a huge basin^ beitv^ vkocov&- 

e f^^ 

'diately under the car, and the horizon on all sides rising 
the level of the eye. This, he admitted, was exactly what 
should be the appearance of a plane viewed from a balloon. 
It is almost needless to say that a globe would present a 
totally different appearance, the highest part being directly 
under the car. 




If the earth be the globe of popular belief, the sa^P 
amount of heat and cold, summer and winter, should be 
experienced at the same latitudes North ajid South of the 
Equator. ITie same number of plants and animals would be 
found, and the same general conditions exist. That the very 
opposite is the case, disproves the globular assumption, The 
Great Contrasts hetween places at the same latitudes North 
and South of the Equator, is a strong argument against 
received doctrine of the rotundity of the earth, 

From 2he Geological Journal for November, 189. 
extract the following : — 

"A Voyage towards the Antarctic Sea," report by Wra. 
S. Bruce, " On January 12th, 1893, we saw what appeared 
to be high mountainous land and glaciers stretching from 
about 64''.iD west to about 65'^, 30 south, 58^ west; this, I 
believe, may have been the eastern coast of Graham's Land, 
which has never before been seen. But it would be unwise 
to be too certain, for // muit have been 60 miles distant." 

"■ Meteorology. — Periods of fine calm weather alternate 
with very severe gales, usually accompanied by fog and 
snow, the barometer never attained jo inches. The records 
of air temperature are very remarkable ; our lowest tempera- 
ture was 20°.8 Fahr., our highest 37°. 6 P'ahr. only adifference 
of 16°, 8 Fahr. in the total range for a period extending 
slightly over two months. Compare this with our climate; 
where in a single day and night you may get a variation of 
more than twice that amount. The average temperatures 
show a still more remarkable uniformity," 

"December averaged 31°. 14 b'ahr. for one hundred and 
fifteen readings; January 31°. 10 Fahr. for one hundred and 
ninety-eight readings ; February 29'^. 65 for one hundred and 
sixteen, a rangt- of less than 1^^ Fahr. 

This 1 consider to be very significant, and worthy of 
special attention by future Antarctic explorers, lor may it 
not indicate a similar uniformity of temperature througil; 

tbe year. Antarctic cold has been much dreaded 1 
by some ; the four hundred and twenty.nine readinjafs j 
I took duriug December, January, and February show an I 
average temperature of only 30'^. 76 Fahr. ; this being in I 
the very height of summer in latitudes corresponding io th^X 
Faroe Islands in the north, but I believe the temperature < 
winter will not vary very much from that of summer. Thia 
uniformity of temperature partly accounts for the greal. 
accumulation of ice which is formed not on account of the grea^ 
severity of the winter, but because there is practically no ^ummet' 
to melt it." 

" Mr. Seebohm has vividly pictured the onrush of summer 
in the Arctic ; but horn differtnt m the Antarctic. Theie, there 
is eternal winter, and snow never melts. As far north as a 
man has travelled he has found reindeer and hare basking 
in the sun, and country brilliant with rich flora; within the 
Antarctic circle no plant is to be found." 

Report by C, W. Donald. M.R., CM. 

" On the passage out, we, on board the Active, touched at 
the beautiful island of Madeira, in October, and two more 
months landed us in the barren Falkland Islands. Sailing 
thence on December iith, we crossed the stormy waters to 
the east of Cape Horn, and saw our first iceberg on Decem- 
ber [8th, On the same day we sighted Clarence Island — 
one of the South Shetlands. These are called after our own 
Northern Shetlands, and the part sighted by us lies only 
some 60 miles nearer the pole. But what a difference between 
the two places. Our own Shetlands bright with ladies' dresses- J 
in light summer garments, and carrying tennis racquets andl 
parasols ; the South Shetlands, even in the height of summer, * 
clad in an almost complate covering of snow, only a Pteep 
cliff or bold rock standing out in deep contrast here and 
there, the only inhabitants being birds or seals; and even 
the bird liin, with the exception of the penguins, is scanty. 
Sir James Ross, on his third voyage, entered the ice at nearly 
the same spot, and, fifly years before — all but a week — had 
sheltered from a westerly gale under the inhospitable shores 
of Clarence Island. Its highest point stands 4,557 feet above 
sea level." 

The following from " Polar Explorations," read before] 
the Royal Dublin Society, is taken from "Zetetic Astronom 
by "Parallax," 

" On the South Georgiaa, in the same latitude 3 

eNottii, r 


toothpick. Captain Cook describes it as * savage and horrible.* 
The wild rocks raised their lofty summits till they were lost in 
the clouds, and the valleys lay covered with everlasting snow. 
Not a tree was to be seen ; not a shrub even big enough to make 
a toothpick. Who could have thought than an island of no 
greater extent than this (Isle of Georgia), situated between the 
latitude of 54 and 55 degrees, should in the very height of summer, 
be in a manner wholly covered many fathoms deep with frozen 
snow ? The lands which lie to the south are doomed by nature 
to perpetual frigidness — never to feel the warmth of the sun's 
rays; whose horrible and savage aspect I have not words to 
describe. The South Shetlands, occupying a corresponding 
latitude to their namesakes in the north, present scarcely a 
vestige of vegetation. Kerguelen, as low as latitude 50 degrees 
south, boasts 13 species of plants, of which only one, a peculiar 
kind of cabbage, has been found useful in cases of scurvy ; while 
Iceland, 15 degrees nearer to the pole in the norths boasts 870 species. 
Even marine life is sparse in certain tracts of vast extent, and 
the sea bird is seldom observed flying over such wastes. The 
contrasts between the limits of organic life in Arctic and Antarctic 
zones is very remarkable and significant. Vegetables and land 
animals are found at nearly 80 degrees in the north ; while, from 
the parallel of 58 degrees in the south, the lichen, and such-like 
plants only, clothe the rocks, and seabirds and the cetaceous 
tribes alone are seen upon the desolate beaches." ** McLintock 
describes herds of reindeer — a perfect forest of antlers — moving 

north in the summer the eider duck and the brent 

goose through the air; the unwieldly family of the cetacea 
through the waters ; the Arctic bear upon the ice ; the musk ox 
and reindeer along the land — all wend their way northward at 

certain seasons Now these indications are absent from 

the southern zone, as is also the inhabitation of man. The bones 
of musk oxen, killed by the Esquimaux, were found north of the 
79th parallel; while in the south, man is not found above the 
56th parallel of latitude." 

This is supported by the following from the Western 
Christian Advocate^ of loth February, 1897, copied from 
Appleton's Science Monthly. 

'* The distinctiveness of the Antartic climate as compared 
with the Arctic is found in the relations of both the summer and 
the winter temperatures. The high summer heat of the north, 
which in the few months of its existence has the energy to 
develop that lovely carpeting of grass and flowers which gives to 
the low-lying lands, even to the 82nd parallel of latitude^ a charm 
equal to that of the upland meadows of Switzerland, is in a 
measure wanting in the south ; in its place frequent cold and 
dreary fogs navigate the atmosphere, and render dreary and 
desolate a region that extends far into what may be properly 
designated the habitual zone. Ihe fields of anemones, 
poppies, saxifrages, and mountain pinks, of dwarf birches and 
AND ICE, with only here and there bare patches of rock, to 
give assurance that something underlies the snow covering. 

Malt's li»bilatioiis in the northern licmhpkcre cxUnd In tht 7Stk' 
parallel of lalilude and formerly exUnded to the 82nd ; in the southern 
htmisphert they find their limit in Fuesia, in THE FIFTY- 
FIFTH PARALLEL fully 350 miles near.r the equator than 
where, as in the Shetland Islands, ladies in lawn dresses disirort 
in the game of tennis. And still, 700 miles further from the 
equator, in Siberia, Nordenskjold found forests of pine ridng 
with trunks 70 to 100 feet in height." 

Jin the " Voyage of a Naturalist," by C. Darwin, pages 

Eand 212, we are informed that 

" Ooeside of the harbour is formed by a hill about 1,500 teet 
high, which Captain Fitxroy has ualled after Sir J. Ba.nks, in 
commemoration of his disastrous excursion which proved fatal to 
two men of his party, and nearly so to Dr. Solander. The snow- 
storm which was the cause of this misfortune, happened in the 
middle of January, corresponding to our July in tht latitude of 

" We were detained here several days by bad weather. The 
climate is certainly wretched. The summer solstice is now (35th 
December) passed, yet every day snow fell on the hilts, and in 
the valleys there was rain accompanied by sleet," 

y It is utterly impossible to .shut one's eyes to the fact that 
jse evidences furnish indisputable proof that the figure of 
the earth cannot be globular. If it were of that shape the 

IEame conditions would be found at equal latitudes north and 
1, which we have seen is not the 



pThe grave contradictions that exi'it among the recognisf 
_eachers of astronomical science, ought to cause a thinking' 
man to pause before accepting a theory about which no two 
of its exponents may be found to agree. 

Sir Isaac Newton, in his " Principia," resuscitated the 
fundamental proposition of Pythagoras thus — "The sun is 
the centre of the solar system and immovable." Since then 
Professor Herschel discovered that the sun was "noi im- 

In regard to the atmosphere of the planet Mars, 
barae contradiction is manifest. In the Chrisltan Mtllti 
) Jose} of c(th August, 1894, we find that 

" Mr. Norman Lockyer has beei 
Mars is like us in many respects. ''' 




The Standard of i8th August, 1894, says : — 

" Professor Campbell, of the Lick Observatory, announces 
that he has demonstrated that MARS presents NO EVIDENCE 

Then Mr. J. Gillespie, in his " Triumph of Philosophy,*' 
page 89, comes to the rescus ancj says 

" As to the planets being inhabited, if we take refraction 
into account, we shall find that there is not such a thing as atmos- 
phere near them ; for instance, in an eclipse of the moon, especially 
at her apogee, the earth is brought to a mere point by refraction, 
caused by the air of the earth, and were the moon a little further 
away from this point, would be brought to nothingness ; that is 
although the earth were exactly in a straight line between the 
sun and moon, the earth would not even show a spot on the 

moon's disc Now by this same rule, if either Mercury or 

Venus had any atmosphere, they could never be seen crossing the 
sun's disc. I think this is satisfactory proof that THEY HAVE 
NO ATMOSPHERE, and cannot^ therefore^ he inhabited.'' 

After all this delightful uncertainty, a writer in Knowledge 
of February, 1895, says 

" The interesting chapter on solar theories is well fitted to 
serve as a lesson in modesty^ so diverse and conflicting are the 
various hypotheses, so difficult to harmonise^ are the observed facts.'* 

When we come to consider the atmosphere that concerns 
us most, the same contradictions are evident. Sir David 
Brewster, in his " More Worlds than One," tells us that the 
atmosphere of the earth extends for about 45 miles. In 
Science Sif tings of 18th March, 1893, the following occurs : 

" We may tw/?r that a few hundred miles embrace all the 
gaseous envelope of the globe." 

And in ** Elementary Physiography,*' page 293, we are 
told that 

" The height of the atmosphere is not known with any certainty. 
There is probably no fixed limit to the atmosphere.'* 

It is a fair inference from these contradictorv statements 
that present day scientivSts (so-called) do not know anything 
about the height of the earth's atmosphere. 

Many men of thought and learning have scouted the 
ideas imposed upon us by Sir Isaac Newton, of which the 
following is a sample : — 

'* The repetition of a blunder is impertinent and ridiculous. 
To liberate oneself from an error is difficult, sometimes indeed 
impossible for even the strongest and most gifted minds. But to 
take up the error of another, and persist in it with stiff-necked 
obstinacyi is a proof of poor qualities. The obstinacy of a man 



of originality when he erre may us angry, but the stupidity 
of the copyist irritates and renders us miserable. And if. in our 
strife with (Sir Isaac) Newton, we have sometimes passed the 
bounds of moderation, the wliole blame is to be laid upon 
the schonl of which Newton was the head, whose ineompeti 
is proportional to its arro^'auce, whose la^iiTiosH is 

Eortional to its self-sufhciency, a:id whose virulence 
)ve of persecution hold each other in perfect equilibrium. 
"Through the whole of Newton's experiments there runs .. 
display of pedantic accuracy, but how the matter really stande, 
with Newton's gift of observation, and with hia experimental 
aptitudes, every man possessing eyes and senses may make 
himself aware. It may be boldly asked, where can the man be 
found, possessing the extraordioary gifts of Newton, who would 
suffer himself to be deluded by such a ftocus pocus if he had noL 
in the first instance wilfully deceived himself? Only those wh<M 
know the strength of self-deception, and the extent to which it 
sometimes trenches on dishonesty, are in a condition to explain 
the conduct of Newton and of Newtoo's school. To support his 
unnatural theory. Newton heaps fiction upon fiction, seeking to 
dazzle when he could not convince."— GO ETffE. Proceidings of 
the Royal Insiitutmi of Gnat Britain. Vol. ix., part iii., p. 353-5' 

to. W. Friend says 

" It has, over and over again, been the hope and expectation 
of intelligent and unprejudiced men that some less extravagant 
and more intelligible system would, sooner or later, be found aa 
a substitute for the mathematical romance with which Newton 
has favoured the world. This name has been the sanction for a 
device, which, the more it is examined, excites the more astonish- 
ment at its adoption by men of research and observation. 



hen, again, Kepler's laws, said to be so well established^ 
^o absolutely necessary to the truth of the Newtonian 
'"hypothesis, when weighed in the balance by competent 
judges, are contradicted and set aside by a stroke of the pen. 
Professor W. B. Carpenter, in the Modern Review for October, 
18S0, says: 

" It was not until twelve years after the publication of hii ^ 

first two laws, that Kepler was able to announce the discovery of' 

the third. This, again, was the outcome of a long series of 

GUESSES, and what was remarkable as to the error of the idea 

which suggested the second law to his mind, was still more 

' remarkable aa to the third ; for not only, in his search for the 

' harmony ' of which he felt assured, did be proceed on the 

erroneous notion of a whirling force emanating from the Sun, 

t which decreases with increase of distance, but he took as his 

guide ANOTHER ASSUMPTION no less erroneous, viz., that 

' the masses of the Planets increase with their distances from the 

■ Sun. In order to make this last fit with the facts he was t 

I ASSUME a relation of their respective densities, which 

\ knmo to be UTTERLY UNTRUE; for, as he himself says,' 

'UnleBs we ASSUME this proportion ol the deositieH, the law " 


the periodic times will not answer.' Thus, says his biographer, 
' three out of the four suppositions made by Kepler to explain the 
beautifiillawhe had detected arenowINDISPUTABLY KNOWN 
TO BE FALSE, wliat he considered to be the proof of it being 
only A MODE OF FALSE REASONING by which 'any 
required result might be deduced from any given principles." 

Newton's theory and Kepler's laws are the chief founda- 
tion stones of modern astronomy, and when these are shaken, 
the whole fabric reels and staggers like a drunken mani 
until, sooner or later it will find a grave in the oblivion that 
it so well merits. 
The Daily Ckronich of 8th April, 1 89 1 , says ; 

still imperfectly 

The Ceylon Independent, of 23rd December, 1893, has the 
following : — 

"This question seems to be still agitating the Austrian 
Government, and more than one Austrian man-of.war that has 
called here lately has had an officer on board whose special com- 
mission was to make observations for the purpose of ascertaining 
the attraction of the earth in order thereby to aiiive at the exact 
shape of the globe. An officer thus employed is on the Austrian 
steamer Fusuku, who, since the vessel's arrival, has spent a good 
deal of time at the National Bank, where a room was allotted 
him for the (jiirpoae of adjusting his instruments. An officer 
engaged on similar duty was on the Kaiserin EUzahdh the other 

Von Gumpach, in his work " Figure of the Earth," tells 
us how the men of science made the world a globe. 

" The earth of the Newtonian theory, is the mere creation of 
the fancy. Its shape has been determined, partly of imaginary 
and partly of positively erroneous elements; and resiilta of 
subsequent experiments and measurements have, by means of 
purely mathematical factors and tentative formulas been adapted 

Mr. J. Gillespie, who believes that the earth is a globe 
suspended in space, with no revolution round the sun, says, 
in his " Triumph of Philosophy," page 6. 

"I can challenge any astronomer in Great Britain on any 
point in theoretical astronomy, and prove that the present theory 
is a regular burlesque, A HOAX and A SWINDLE. Ifitisasm 
to tell a. lie, what must be the doom of men who teach generation 
after generation one of the most glaring aad degraded falsehoods 
ever laid before mankind." 

Dr. Lardner, in his Museum of Science," says 

" All the diurnal changes of appearances, presented bv the 
finnament, the risings and settings of the s 

and their varying appea.ra.DceB io difTereot latitudes, admit ( 
being explained with equal precision and completeness, either b 
supposinK the iiniverae to revolve daily round the earth, c 
earth to revolve daily on its axis." 

Then as to the velocity of light (if light travels at all] 
the same glorious mixture and uncertainty again present thei 
selves. Guillemin ("The Heavens") conjectures that ligl 
travels at the rate of 192,000 miles a second. M. Leon F( 
cault guesses 184,000 miles; Sir R. Ball 180,000 miles; the 
Editor oi Science Si/imgs a.s,s,umes (first time) 186,000 miles, 
second time iqft, 000 miles. This is all contradicted by a writer 
in the English Mechanic of 27th July, 1894, who says : 

I Most people think that there is only one school of 

Astronomy in vogue, whereas there are are at least four, all 

j at loggerheads with each other, (i) The Ptulemaists, repre- 

' sented by J, Gillespie, of Dumfries, who suppose the " earth " 

I globe a centre for the revolution of the sun, moon, and stars ; 

(2) The Koreshans of America, who suppose the "earth" a 

hollow globe for us to live iTiside; {3! The Newtonian 

Copernicans, who suppose the sun a centre, keeping the 

planets whirling in orbits by gravity ; and (4) the Cartesian 

Copernicans, who suppose the planets to whirl round the 

sun, without the necessity of gravity. Sir R. Phillips headin] 

up this school. 

Astronomy will sometimes summon Geology to its aid^ 

y when difficult problems are awaiting solution, but astronomersi 

generally claim that when the two sciences disagree, 

astronomy is the Srt/ci-/ ASSUMPTION. S, Laing, however, 

gs "Modern Science and Modern Thought" claims 
■iority for Geology. On pages 48 and 49, he 

" The conclusions of Geology, at any rate up to the Silurii 

period are approxiiiiaU facts and NOT THEORIEi 

while the astronomical conclusions are THEORIES, based oit" 
data so imcerlain, that while in some cases they give results tn- 
cr«Ii&i)'*^'''''il'''ethat of 15,000,000 years for the whole past process 
of the formation of the solar system, in others they give results 
almost incredibly long, as in that which supposes the Moon to 
have been thrown off when the earth wa.'; rotating in three hours. 

the s.ifist course, in the present state of onr knowledge 

the duration of the present order of things to have been somewhere 

Thus one fable (falsely called science) exposes another 
Me of about the same vahie. "The safest course in )" 




iSent state " of the utter ignorance of " science " as to tm 

matters here in dispute, is certainly co reject both these 
delusions, and seek the truth for ourselves. 

Geological blunders have been many and frequent, but 
they are seldom allowed to reach the eyes or ears of those 
who are duped into believing all this imposing "science" 
teaches. The Oai'/y CArowiir/c of 14th January, 1893, speaks 
pretty plain, and proves the truth of the above remarks, T^H 
paper says : ^^H 


" There is ia Nature an article by a French writer on 9^^ 
Archibald Geikiii, Director- General of tlie Geological Survey, 
which is just now causing a good deal of talk amongst English 
men of science. Of course, nobody is surprised at the fnlsome- 
nesa of M. de Lapparent's eulogy. As Nature seems to exist 
for pushing the great official scientific sj-ndicate of Huxley, 
Hooker, Geikie and Co., Limited — very strictly timited^which 
may be said to "run" science in England, M. de Lapparent 
would probably not nave been permitted to write anything about a 
member of it unless it was fulsome. What has really amazed 
people is Ihtj audacity with which a famous historic bimgie on the 
part of the Geological Survey is glossed over, and the Director- 
General not only credited- vkth the work of those who exposed 
and corrected it, to his utter discomforture, but actually covered 
with laurels for thus winning one of the most glorious scientific 
conquests of the century. The whole thing is delightfully 
characteristic of State-endowed science in England, If you are 
one of the official syndicate who " run " it, you may blundM" 
with impunity and make your country ridiculous at the taxpayers' 
expense. Scientific men who can correct you shrink from the 
task. They know that the syndicate can boycott them, and by 
intrigue keep them out of every honour and profit, and that the 
syndicate's satellites can write and shout down everywhere inde- 
pendent non-official critics. They also know that if, perchance, 
some partipular intrepid person does succeed in exposing one ol 
this syndicate, they can always, by the aarne means — after the 
public has forgotten the incident^sup press him, and boldly 
appropriate to themselves the credit of bis work." 

" The geological secret of the Highlands, with the unlocking 
of which Sir Archibald Geikie is now credited, was really made a 
puzzle for more than half a century by the blundering of the 
Geographical Survey and Director -General Sir Roderick 
Murchison — and famous courtier and " society " geologist of the 
last generation. In the Highlands he saw gneisses and ordinary 
cr>'stalline schists resting on Silurian strata, and be foolishly 
held the sequence to he quite normal, The schists, he would 
have it, were not archaic formations, but only m eta- morp hosed 
Silurian deposits. He also held that primitive gneiss was not 
part of the molten crust of the ghbe, but only sediments of sand 
and mud altered by intense pressure and heat. Murchison, not 
to put too fine a point on it, " bounced " everj'body into accept- 
ting this absurd theory, and the w^ole foitea ot the Geological 
"" ', with its official and social \tiR\ieuce, losft'fttfK VWi '^- 

t the^H 


^BscrupulouE power of the official syndicate which then, as 
jobbed science wherever it had a State endowment, were spent in 
perpetuating the blunder and blasting the scientific reputation 
of whoever scoffed at it. But ia the Natural History School ot 
Aberdeen University it was scoffed at. The late Dr. Nicol, 
Professor of Natural History- in Aberdeen, proved that Murchison 
and the Survey were whally wrong, hia proof being as complete 
as the existing state of science allowed. When he died, Dr. 
AUeyne Nicholson took the same side, and for years, in relation 
to this grand problem, it was Aberdeen University against 

world In shouting the last word no voice has fa 

louder than Sir Archibald Geikie's. It is therefore diverting 
find his official biographer staling in Nature that all the ti; 
was wrestling inforo conseientiie with doubts as to the soundness 
of the oflicia! position, and that finally "his love of truth" 
prompted him to order a re-survey of the whole Highland region. 
In plain English, the taapayer, having had topayforMurchison's 
bungling survey, was, because of his successor's " love of truth," 
to enjoy the luxury of paying over again to correct it. 

The real truth, however, is this : — When it was supposed 
that the Aberdonians were finally crushed, there arose in England 
a young geologist called Lapworth, who had the courage to 
revise the whole controversy and take sides with the Aberdeen 
Bchool. As he developed an extraordinary genius for stratieraphy 
he not only broke to pieces the official work of the GeoljiEicju 
Survey in the Highlands, but by revealing the true secret of tbej 
structure of that perplexing region, he played havoc with thftS 
MuTchisons and the Geikies and all their satellites, convictin|^ 
them of bungling and covering them with ridicule. ... ^ 

Nature, in fact, in these parts had suffered from a much 
more powerful emetic than Murchison imagined, and when bits 
of the primitive crtist of the glome were thrown up and pushed 
on the top of more recent deposits, Murchison jumped lo the 
conclusion that they were of later date than what they lay on. 
It was a terrible blunder, as the Aberdeen men persistently held, 
and we do not wonder that Sir Archibald Geikie, who rose to 
place and power by defending it, is anxious to have his connection 
with it veiled by a friendly hand. But it is rather outrageous for 
the friendly hand to give him the credit of conceding the very 
(Wor which he defended la the laU gasp, and deprive Professor 
Lapworth of the honour of having banished it from science. One 
of the most diverting things, however, in the Article in Nafun 
ts that Sir Archibald Geikie is belauded because, when frightened 
by the stir Professor Lapworth's paper made in 1883, he was 
fain to send his surveyors to go over the Highlands again — he, 
B their official chief, ordered them " to divest themselves of any 
prepossession in Juvour of published vie-ws, and to map out the 

' actual facts." Old Colin Campbell, when he objected to the 
institution of the Victoria Cross. sa:d it was as absurd to 
decorate a soldier for being brave as.a woman for being virtuous. 
He did not foresee a still greater absurdity — that of eulogising a 
man of science because he instructed his a8sUt.ante to \.tV. *ifi. 
truth when conducting an icvEstiga.V\on. \nlQ ^vw o-w^ "X^WkoiS''^-' 

I (/Aniee ours).— From the Daily OhronkU, Saturday, Jftiv. \aj.\v- 


And in a further issue the same paper says : ""* 

•' Sir Archibald GeikJe, Director- General of the Geological 
Survey, has at last takoQ notice— in Nature, we need hardly say 
— of our article condemning the attempt to give the Survey all 
the credit of some of the most remarkable discoveries of the age 
which have really been made by men unaided by the State, and 
toiling for daily bread as teachers of science. We bad heard 
something that caused us to expose this scandal. The fact is the 
official ring of State-endowed science, not content with jobbing 
the Koyal Society aud its distinctions, as their critics have been 
ehowing in the Timen, are meditating a raid on the taxpayer. 
They want more money, and as a preliminary step their ofGcial 
organ Nature of course begins to "boom" their work and repu- 
tations. This is a good old game. The only novelty in the 
situation is that a daily newspaper, for the first time in history, 
ventured to show it up. We do not desire to be harsh to the 
iUustrious scientists who edit Nature. It is the duty of all ofKcial 
organs to make big men out of small material. But when tbey 
begin to do this by cooly confiscating the achievements of private 
and independent workers for one of the managing partners of 
the great firm of Huxley, Geikie, Dyer & Co., limited, we thought 
it time to protest The letters that have been ap- 
pearing in the Times make some funny revelations about the way 
the Royal Society is "worked." Sir Archibald Geikie's defence 
^ suggests that if the Times only followed up the game it scented 
it would show its readers plenty of sport. We ourselves would 
make no objection to a vote of money in aid of researches into 
the "firank"and "practical" manner in which, and the Urmiim 
iwAtcft, the official gang of science frequently "acknowledge" the 
achievements of young outsiders." — Daily Chronicle, Feb. z, 1893, 

Modern Astronomy has been set down as " the most 
exact of all the sciences," and geology said to be little less 
than infallible. The reader may form his own conclusioi 
firom the above extracts. 


is said to be be one of the best proofs that the earth is a. glol 

It is often asserted — generally by those who have not 
the remotest idea of the subje(;t — that ships have sailed round 
the world on one course, East or West' and come back to the 
place where they started from. It will be a suprise to such 
to be informed that this wonderful feat of navigation has 
never yet been accomplished ; that it is most unlikely that It 
will ever become a fact ; and that it would take several oi 
the proverbial " small fortunes " to successfully carry it out. 

Some people think it is quite an easy matter to start 
from, say Liverpool, and steer west and come bacK to the 



ting point. Suppose we attempt such a journey. Aftef • 
crossing the Atlantic we must leave the ship and traverse 
the American continent As there are no roads running due 
west, we should have to take the sun's bearing almost hourly 
to keep us on the true course; sometimes having to cross 
private property, travel through cultivated lands, and in acme 
cases to go through other people's houses to preserve a 
^vesterly course. Suppose we arrived at the other side and 
then took ship across the Pacific, we should again have to 
travel across a continent — thousand ot miles— to get back to 
the North Sea, and then across it and England we might 
arrive at Liverpool. If anyone thinks this possible he ought! 
to try it. ■ 

If the reader will scan the surface of a school globe, ha9 
will at once see that if such a thing should ever be attempted, 
no reasonable hope of success could be entertained, unless * 
the attempt were made in the extreme south. Suppose a 
ship to start from Cape Point, latitude 34 south, and steer 
east. The first land encountered would be Australia, Shtf^ 
would then have to go south to clear the land and so coul^j 
not return to her starting point on an easterly course, bul 
would have to take many courses to return there. 

Let the ship start from Cape Horn, in latitude 56 southj 
and steer She would soon encounter islands and wouldf 
have to alter her course to north or south to clear them, 
so could not get back to Cape Horn on a westerly coursej 
The same would apply on an easterly course, 

Jt is evident, therefore, that the earth can only be eircumnavp^ 
gated on one course m the extreme south. There, the dangerd 
of icebergs, of magnitudes never met with in the north, and^ 
darkness during a great part of the year, would render suctjj 
an expedition costly, dangerous, and of long duration. 

Say a vessel starts on an easterly or westerly course 
in latitude 65 south. .She could only sail during the veryl 
finest of summer weather, and would have to come north I 
during the winter. Returning to her last point, she could 
ag'ain start on the course round the world, and continue so 
long as the fine weather lasted, repeating the process of going 
north during the dark and winter months. That this would 
occupy a long time, and cost a deal of money, is plain 
enough to anyone willing to be convinced. For these reasons 
J am 0/ opitiion that no ship will ever sail round the world on 
one course and come back to her starti?ig point. And yet s<ime 
the world a globe ! One of the greatest feats of navigation 
jgill tell you that it has been done scores of times, and proves 


and seamanship that man could undertake, and which has 
never yet been attempted, is spoken of as though it were a 
matter of almost daily occurence ! And who but the 
astronomers are responsible for such -like fallacies in school 
books and astronomical works ? Who but those famed for 
" learned ignorance " are answerable for the foolish arrogance 
and stupid credulity of the masses on this subject r Can 
there be any truth in a science which is founded on conjecture 
and supported by so-called facts as proof of its correctness, 
which facts have never existed outside the brains of their 
inventors r 

If it were said that a vessel could sail round the world, 
allowing for deviations for land, ice, and other obstacles in 
the way of her making one course ; so that by making many 
and various courses she could at length return to her starting 
♦ point, I would have no quarrel with the propounders of" circum- 
navigation." But if the general statements on the point 
were reduced and brought within the compass of fact, in 
language such as the above, the supposed proof of the world's 
rotundity would be annihilated. In Evers' " Navigation " it 
is stated that a vessel may leave a port, sail round the earth, 
and come back to her starting point o?i one course. This, I 
have no hesitation in stating, is absolutely false. If otherwise, 
I should be glad to be informed of the name of the port. 

The learned are beginning to see through the fallacy of 
the circumnavigation proof of the world's rotundity, as the 
following from " Elementary Physiography," by Professor 
Richard A, Gregory, F.R.A.S., clearly shows : 

"The earth has been circumnavigated a great many times, 
and it is a common occurrence for a ship to leave England, and 
by steering westward all the voyage to arrive in England again 
without retracing an inch of her way. Similarly, we can journey 
round the globe, sometimes traveliinj;^ on land, and sometimes on 
the sea, but eventually returning to the starting point without at 
all turning back on our course. This would appear to be a 
certain proof that the earth's surface is curved, nevertheless it 
has been pointed out that circumnavigation would be possible if 
the earth had a flat surface, with the north magnetic pole at its 
centre. A compass needle would THEN always point to the 
centre of the surface, and so a ship might sail due east and west, 
as indicated by the compass, and eventually return to the same 
point by describing a circle." 

D. Wilson-Barker, R.N.R., F.R.S.E., remarks, in his 
work on " Navigation *' : 

"The fact that the earth has been sailed round, is not suffi- 
cient proof as to its exaqt shape," 


After these "authoritative" statements, we may hope that 
this so-called proof of the globular shape of the earth will 
soon be expunged from the text books. 


In " Chambers' Mathematical Tables " the curvature of 
the globe is given as 7.935 inches to the mile, varying 
inversely as the square of the distance. If it be required to 
ascertain the curvature on a globe ot 25,000 statute miles 
equatorial circumference, square the distance and multiply 
t>y 7-935 inches. The result is the curvature. Thus, in six 
miles there is a dip of nearly 24 feet ; in 30 miles, nearly 600 
feet ; and so on. 

• In " Mensuration,'' by T. Baker, C.E., the correction for 
curvature is said to be 7.962 inches to the mile. These two 
equations so nearly agree, and amount to just about what 
the correction would be on a globe of the size the earth is 
said to be, that they may be taken as correct. If, therefore, 
the world we live on is a globe, it is a simple matter to find 
out how far any object at a given height can be seen. 

In September, 1898, I received a letter from Australia, 
in which the writer says : 

" In the year 1872 I was on board the ship "Thomas Wood," 
Capt. Gibson, from China to London. Owing to making a long 
passage, we ran short of provisions, and so short atter rounding 
the Cape that the Captain spoke of putting into St. Helena for 
a supply. It was then my hobby to get the first glimpse of land, 
and in order to do this I would go up to the topgallant yard and 
make a survey, just as the sun would be rising. The island was 
clearly in view, well on the starboard bow. I reported this to 
Capt. Gibson. He disbelieved me, saying it was impossible, as 
we were 75 miles distant. He, however, offered me paper and 
pencil to sketch the land I saw. This I did. He then said, 'you 
are right," and shaped his course accordingly. I had never seen 
the Island before, and could not have described the shape of it 
had I not seen it." 

St. Helena is a high volcanic island, and if my informant 
had seen the top only, there would have to be an allowance 
made for the height of the land, but as he sketched ^Ae island ^ 
he must have seen the whole of it, which should have been 
3,650 feet below the line of sight, if the world be a globe 
(deducting 100 feet for the height of the yard he viewed it 

In " Chambers' Information for the People," section t 
Physical Geography, page 513, the following occurs ; 

"In North America, the basin or drainage of the Mississippi 
is estimated at square miles, and that of the St. Law- 
rened at 600,000; while northward of the 50th parallel, extends 
an inhospitable^nf of perhaps greater dimensions. . . . Next 
ill order of importance is that section of Europe extending from 
the German Sea, through Prussia. Poland, and Russia, towards 
the Ural Mountains, presenting indifferently tracts of heath, sand 
and open pasture, and regarded by geographers as ON E VAST 
PLANE. So flat is the general profile of the region, that It has 

The foregoing is a London-to-Moscow proof that the 
surface of the world is not globular. On a globe, no matter 
how powerful the glass, only a certain distance could be seen, 
as the roundness of the globe would prevent a glass from 
seeing round it, and its thickness would equall}^ prevent one 
seeing through it. But in fine weather objects at distances 
out of all proportion to what the curvature would allow, are 
visible with the assistance of a good glass. The following 
from the " Voyage of a Naturalist," by C. Darwin, page 166, 
illustrates this point : 

" The guanaco, or wild llama. — Mr. Stokes told me that he 
one day saw, through a glass, a herd of these animals which 
evidently Sad beea frightened, and were running away at full 
speed, although thtir dhtance was so great that he could not dis- 
tinguish them with the naked eye." 

From the "Atlas of Physical Geography," by the Rev. 
T.Milner, il.A., I extract the following: 

" Vast areas exhibit a perfectly dead level, scarcely a rise ex- 
isting through 1,500 miles from the Carpathians to the Urals, 
South of the Baltic the aiunlry is sn flat tiiat a prevailing north 
wind will drive the waters of the Stattiner Haf into the mouth of 
the Oder, and give the river a backward flow 30 or 40 miles." 

"The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South 
America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or 
level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE 

"The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its 
course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an 
inch a mile," extracts clearly prove that the surface of the earth 
is a level surface, and that, therefore, the world is not a globe. 
And when we come to consider the surface of the world under 
(he sea, we shall find the same unformity of evidence agai|| 

1^"^ — 1 

the popular view. In " Nature and Man," by Professor W. 
B. Carpenter, article " The Deep Sea and its Contents," 
pages 320 and 321, the writer says : 

I "Nothing seems to have struck the "Challenger" surveyors 
more than the extraordinary FLATNESS {except in the neigh- 
bourhood of land) of that depressed portion of the earth's crust 
. . . . If the Iwtlom of mid-ocean were laid dry, an observer 
standing on any spot of it would Jind himself surrounded BY A 
PLAIN, only comparable to that of the North American prairies 
or the South American pampas The form of the 
depressed area which lodges the water of the deep ocean is 
rather, indeed, to be likened to that of a FLAT WAITEU or 
TEA TRAY, surrounded bj- an elevated and deeply -si oping rim, 
than to that of the basin with which it is commonly compared." 
I This remarkable writer tells of thousand.s of miles, in the 
Atlantic, the Pacific, and the great Southern Ocean beds 
being a plane surface, and from his remarks it is clear that 



If the earth be the globe of popular belief, it is ver3^ 
' evident that in cutting a canal, an allowance must be made 
for the curvature of the globe, which allowance would corres- 
pond to the square of the distance multiplied by eight 
inches, nearly. From the Age, of 5th August 1893, I extract 
the following: 

K" The German Emperor performed the ceremony of opening 
the Gates of the Baltic and North Sea Canal, in the spring of 
iSgi. The canal starts at Hollenau, on the south side of Kiel 
Hay, and Joins the Elbe 15 miles above its mouth, It is 61 miles 
long, 200 feet wide at the auriace and 85 feet at bottom, the 
depth being 28 feet. No locks are required, as the surface of ikt 
, I 

s ilveV 

F' those who believe it is the practice for surveyors to 

allowance for " curvature" ponder over the following 

&om the Manchester Ship Canal Company, — {Earth Review, 
October, 1893), 

" It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all 
levels to be referred to a dntum which is nominally horizontal, 
and is so shown on all hcctiuiis. /( is not the practice in laying 
out Public Works to make alluwaiue for the curvature of the earth." — 
Manchester Ship Canal Co., Engineer's Office, 19th February! 

rtk."— i 


A surveyor, Mr. T. Westwood, writes to the Earth 
Review^ for January, 1896, as follows : 

" In levelling, I work from Ordnance marks, or canal levels, 

to get the height above sea level I work sometimes from 

what is known as the Wolverhampton level, this is said to be 
473.19 feet above sea level ; sometimes I work from the Birming- 
ham level, this is said to be 45304 feet above sea level. Some- 
times I work from the Walsall level, this is said to be 407.89 feet 
above sea level. The puzzle to me used to be, that, though each 
extends several miles, each level was and is treated throughout 
its whole length as the same level from end to end ; not the 
least allowance being made for curvature, although if the earth 

werq a globe, 112 feet ought to be allowed One of the 

civil engineers in this district, after some amount of argument 
on each side as to the reason why no allowance for curvature 
was made, said he did not believe anybody would know the 
shape of the earth in this life." 

I think most will grant that a practical man is capable 
of forming a judgment, in all cases of more value than the 
merely theoretical calculator. Here, then, we have the 
evidence of practical men to the effect that no allowance for 
curvature is made in cutting canals, a clear proof that we 
are not living on a huge ball, but on a surface, the general 
contour of which is level, as the datum line from which 
surveys are made IS ALWAYS A HORIZON! AL LINE. 


J. W. Draper, in his " Conflict between Religion and 
Science," page 160, says : 

"The circular visible horizon and its dip at sea, the gradual 
appearance and disappearance of ships in the offing, cannot fail 
to incline intelligent sailors to a belief in the globular form of 
the earth." 

The " circular visible horizon " amounts to nothing, 
because if we take our stand in a large square of, say, 20 
miles, the visible horizon will be circular, any point in the 
distance being the edge of the circle of vision. If we measure 
off a square of 100 miles or so, the vision will be bounded by 
a circle, the limit of sight. So the " circular visible horizon '* 
may at once be dismissed. But '* its dip at sea " is just what 
has never been seen. It is the very thing that requires to be 
seen to establish the globular theory \ it \^ t\v^ n^t^ \!cCvcv^ 


tt never has been seen. Wherever we look at sea, the 
water extends in one straight line, as far as the eye can 
reach. A flat surface is always seen, and ships are seen at 
distances altogether out of proportion to the allowance to be 
made for convexity, if the surface were a convex one. 

When a ship or any other object recedes from the 
observer on a level surface the highest part is always 
last by reason of perspective. So that ihe masts and sails of; 
a receding vessel on a flat surface should be seen long after 
the hull has become invisible to the naked eye. Besides this 
law of perspective, the hull of a vessel is generally of a dark 
colour, and often at a very short distance disappears to the 
naked eye, because it has lost its individuality in the mass 
of surrounding water, both hull and water being nearly of 
the same colour. It appears to have mingled with the water, 
and is thus lost to sight. The hull has no background what- 
ever, but the masts and sails have a splendid background 
against the sky, and stand out to advantage, and are, for this 
reason also, seen long after the hull has vanished. But that 
the hull has not " gone down behind a hill of water" — that 
it is not because of the globular surface of the water that it 
IS invisible — has been proved by the writer many times. 

At Capetown, sometime ago, I made special experimentaf 
with a view to arrive at the truth of the matter. On one 
occasion I watched the schooner Lillii, of Capetown, sail away 
north, bound to Saldanha Bay. Instead of gradually going 
down the hill of water— the observer always being on the 
highest part — she appeared to ascend an inclined plane, until 
she reached the level of my eye — perhaps loo feet above sea 
level — and then gradually diminished in size. Soon her hull 
disappeared — it was painted black — and her masts and sails 
became smaller and smaller every minute. I then applied a 
binocular to the eye, and saw her hull plainly enough. It 
remained in sight until the individuality of the vessel's parts 
were lost 'n the distance. 

The iron barque La Querida. of Liverpool, sailed out of 
Table Bay bound to Australia. I watched her until the hull 
had completely disappeared ; but on applying the glass saw 
it as clearly as possible, and this when the vessi'l was at 
least lo miles away. So that the "hill of water" in both- 
these instances was imaginary only. 

In May, 1895, I was a passenger on board the U. 
Goth. In Algoa Bay I gave a brief lecture on thi 
this work, and had much discussion witk ^^^tte q^ ■C^v'^ ■^suw: 
1 trers; one affirming he could toeUeve a\\ \ ^■aix'i^. 


' .exception of the way I accounted for the disappearance ot 
ships at sea. I replied that we would likely see one of the 
ships, and then it could be tested. Next day I observed a 
vessel about ten miles away, but though the masts and sails 
were pretty clear, the hull was not to be seen. Applying 
the glass I saw the hull as plain as any other part of the ship, 
I called the gentleman with whom I had the previous day's 
conversation and showed him the vessel. I asked him to 
look at the ship for some time so as to be quite sure whether 
the hull was visible or not. After looking a minute or so he 
was quite certain that the hull couid not be seen I asked 
him why it was invisible. " Because," said he, "it is hidden 
behind a hill of water, the surface of the o ean being: convex." 
I asked him if he believed my glass could see through a 
" hill of water," and gave him the astronomer's curvature for 
the distance — which he admitted to be lo miles — as lo by lo 
by 8 inches = 66 feet, less 20 feet for height of eye and 
10 feet for height of the other vessel's hull, ~ 36 feet the 
hull should have been below the water. He replied that the 
glass could not, of course, see through a hill of water, and 
applied it to his eye. Great was his astonishment on seeing 
the hull, but equally ready was his confession that the theory 
of the earth's rotundity founded on the disappearance of ships 
at sea was false. 

On a steamer in March, 1897, when near St. Helena ray 
attention was called to a large vessel, just before sunset. 
With the naked eye the masts and sails were visible enough, 
but nothing of the hull could be seen. On applying the 
glass, there appeared to be no difference, and I was for some 
time lost in wonder. But as the sun got lower in the heavens, 
I noticed that the vessel's hull was overshadowed by banks 
of blark clouds low down on the water and thus could not be 
seen. The hull was enveloped in dense blackness and was 
lost to the eye. But as soon as the sun was low enough to 
counteract this effect, I saw the hull quite plain with the 
glass, when only the sails were visible to the naked eye. 

Between Teneriffe and .Southampton we sighted a large 
four-masted steamer astern of us. The hull was also plainly 
to be seen — the vessel appeared to be in ballast. Our ship's 
officers said she was 12 miles away, and I think the distance 
was not less. For two whole days she was visible to us 
astern ; sometimes the hull being quite plain, at other times 
being invisible ; thus proving that the state of the atmosphere 
has more to do with the matter than globularity, if it existed, 
could have, AffOTi^tn^ /p (hf giob^ (keory, aft d^'e^. plain'' 


vtsible to the naked eye and seen by scores of people y should have . 
been g6 feet below the horizon^ allowing both vessels to be the 
same height above the water, which was as near as possible 
correct, as our ship had scarcely any cargo on board and 
presented a high side out of the water. 


** To the Editor of the EaYih Review, 

Sir, — In August last I, with several other friends, being in 
Oban for a holiday, took a trip for a day in a small yacht on 
Loch Lome, and being a glorious sunshiny day and so calm that 
not a ripple was seen, and being becalmed for an hour about 
mid-day we observed a good many sights of various kinds. 
Amongst other things that we saw was a yacht, which the captain 
told us was 12 miles distant. We saw all the masts and part of 
the hull, and to get a better view of her we took our binocular 
opera glass (a good one). Now, sir, would'nt it require a funny 
curvature table either with or without the odd fractions to 
explain how we saw the hull of that vessel twelve miles off ? 
According to a table furnished by the present Astronomer Royal 
recently, it ought to have been 66 feet below the line of sight ; 
but the " table " that we saw it from was the side of our yacht, 
and we concluded the sea was level. 

Yours respectfully, 
Siddal, Halifax. JOHN SMITH. 

The following is from " lOo Proofs that the Earth is not 
a Globe " : 

** If we take a trip down the Chesapeake Bay, in the day- 
time, we may see for ourselves the utter fallacy of the idea that 
when a vessel appears " hull down," as it is called, it is because 
the hull is '* behind the water " : for, vessels have been seen, and 
may often be seen again, presenting the appearance spoken of, 
and away — far away — beyond those vessels, and, at the same 
moment, the level shore line, with its accompanying complement 
of tall trees, towering up, in perspective, over the heads of the 
* hull-down ' ships I " 

The following is from Chambers' Journal^ of February, 
1895, page 32: 

** A good many years ago a Pilot in the Mauritius reported 
that he had seen a vessel which turned out to be 200 miles off. 
This incident caused a good deal of discussion in nautical circles 
at the time, and strange to say, a seemingly well authenticated 
case of the same kind occurred afterwards at Aden. A Pilot 
there announced that he had seen from the heights the Bombay 
steamer then nearly due. He stated precisely the direction in 
which he saw her, and added that her head was not then turned 
towards the port Two days afterwards the missing -^ 

steamer entered the Port, and it was found ofi ! 

e mentioned bv the Pilot she « 

ictly lit the direction' 

Under exceptional conditions of the atmosphere, there- 
fore, enormous distances can be penetrated by the unaided 
eye, and with a good telescope, objects at distances totally 
out of proportion to the globular theory, can be seen. Take 
the case uf the above steamer. If the globe theory be correct 
this vessel would have been FOUR MILES BELOW THE 
LINE OF SIGHT, allowtng one mile for height of observer, 
and thus even when aided by the most powertul telescope 
ever invented, could not have been seen. Once more, it dawns 
on the thinking man, that the world is not the globe of 
popular credulity, but an extended motionless plane. 



If the world be a globe, the distances which are .sailed 
by ships "sailing round the globe" would answer to the 
theory, and measurements as made by .■iuch ships would 
always answer to the theoretical distances o( the astronomer. 
That such is not the case, as I shall presently show, disproves 
the theory. First, let us enquire how distances are obtained, 
say in sailing on an easterly or westerly course. In obtaining 
the longitude by dead reckoning, an allowance for the sup- 
posed convergence (or shorter longitude) according to the 
latitude would have to be made, when the result obtained 
should not vary much h-om longitude obtained by observa- 
tion. When currents have to be reckoned with, the allowance 
for their known velocity in any direction would bring the 
result of the dead reckoning up to that obtained by observa- 
tion ; always remembering that if a ship is steering east, for 
example, the allowance FOR THE DIRECTION of the 
current rannot be the same as would have to be made by a. 
vessel in the same latitudes steering west. If the allowance 
for currents he made in the same direction lohett the skip is 
steering west as when she is st erittg east, IT IS VERY EVI- 
ACTUAL FACTS, Navigators are often at a loss to account 
Jor the great differences between dead reckoning (even whi 

;n whe^^ 


_ allowance for currents has been made) and the ship's 
position as obtained by observation. Believing that they 
,are sailing on a globular surface, nothing presents itself to 
the mind, but the usual theories by which they unsuccessfully 
endeavour to account for the discrepancy. Did they know 
that the surface of the ocean is a plana surface (///ey OUGHT 
rO KNOW THISi, something new would present itself for 
consideration, thfories would be abandoned, and investiga- 
tion instituted. The result could not fail to be advantageous 
to navigation generally. In " South Sea Voyages," by Sir 
^ les C. Ross, Vol. i, page g6 states: 


"We found ourselves every day from iz to i8 miles 
obEervation i/i advance of our reckoning." 

'Page 27 : 


" By our observations at noon we found ourselves 58 miles 
to the eastward of our reckoning In two days," 

"Voyage towards the South Pole," by Captain Jas, 
Weddell, states: 

"Feb. nth, at noon, in lat. 65° 53' South, our chrononiBters 
gave 44 miles more Westing than the log in three days." 

Lieutenant Wilkes says that in less than 18 hours he 
was 20 miles to the eoj/ofhis reckoning, in latitude 54° 20' 
South. In " Anson's Voyage round the World," by R. 
Walter, page 76, the following statement is made: 

" It was, iudeed, most wonderful that the currents should 
have driver na to the eastward with such strength ; for the whole 
squadron esteemed themselves upwards of 10 degrees more 
westerly tha.n this land (Straits of Magellan) ; so that in running 
down, by our account, about 19 degrees of longitude, we had , 
not really advanced half that distance.'' 


Captain Woodside, of the American barquentine Echo, 
at Capetown, on 26th June, 1898, reports that on 12th 
January, 1896, being without observation for two days and 
going 250 miles a day on a straight course, he expected to 
be 100 miles south and a long way to the eastward of Gough 
Island in latitude 40° south, but was startled to find his ship 
making straight for the island, and barely escaped shipwreck. 

j The Philena Winslaw was wrecked there 25 years ago, and 

,' there are remains of numerous other wrecks. 

The fact that in sailing either east or west the currents 
are allowed the same way, proves that the rotundity idea is j 
the factor which effectually debars our navigators irom J 

^iflrtaining a correct solution of the difficulty. Let it b^^B 

Itt— ll 


acknowledged that, as the surface of all standing water is 
level, the world is a plane and not a globe, and investigation 
may be instituted into the causes of the discrepancies to 
which we have alluded. But so long as the globular idea 
prevails, so long will it be impossible for the navigator to 
arrive at the truth of the matter. I have further weight of 
evidence on this important branch of our subject, by com- 
paring the theoretical measurements of the supposed " globe" 
with the distances actually made in sailing. These data, 
which I now submit, prove clearly to any unprejudiced mind, 
that the world cannot be the globe of astronomical imagina- 
tion ; but that it is an outstretched circular plane, without 
axial or orbital motion. 

.Sir Robert Ball, in his " Story of the Heavens," page 
163, informs the reader that: 

" The dimensions of the earth are known with a high degree 
of accuracy." 

This writer is recognised as an able exponent of globular 
hypotheses, and it is generally conceded that what he says 
may be regarded as correct. Let us now enquire with what 
high degree of accuracy the dimensions of the earth are 
known. If the earth be the globe it is generally said to be, 
it is evident that the further we go south from the equator, 
the smaller will the circles be, and no circle south of the 
equator could be equal to that at the equator. 

The S.S. Nithsdak, of Glasgow, Captain Hadden, sailed 
from Hamelin Bay, in Western Australia, on 8th January, 
i8g8, arriving at Port Natal on ist February, i8q8, having 
steamed 4,519 nautical miles. Her log, of which the chief 
' officer, Mr. Boyle (also a passed Master), kindly gave me a 
copy, shows that she did not make quite a rhomb line track, 

Hamelin Bay is in latitude 34° south and longitude 1 15" 
5' east. Port Natal is situate in latitude iif 53' south and 31" 
4' east longitude. The difference of latitude being so small, 
we shall not get far out if we take the middle latitude, viz. : 
32° south. The difference of longitude is 84° i' or 4.28 of the 
complete circle of 360° round the world. Something must 
be added to the ship's log so as to bring the distance up to 
the rhomb line track, say too miles ; therefore, to find the 
distance round the world at 32" south it is only necessary to 
solve the following problem : ^^~ 

5,390 statute 1 


This is several thousand miles in excess of what thdl 
distance would or could be on a globe. And fiirther south ; 
on a globe, the distance would be less. 

In the " Cruise of H.M.S, Challenger," by W. J. J. Spry, 
the distance made good from the Cape of Good Hope to 
Melbourne is stated to be 7,637 miles. The Cape is in lati- 
tude 34" 31' south and Melbourne in latitude 37° south, the 
longitude of the Cape being iS'^ .30' east and Melbourne 145° 
east. The middle latitude is 35^'^'. Difference of longitude 
i26J°, which makes the distance round the world at that 
latitude (35j°) to be over 25,000 statute miles and as great as 
the equator is said to be. Thus we see on reliable evidence 
that the further we go south the greater is the distance round 
the world. This latter distance is many thousand miles more 
than the purely theoretical measurement of the world at that 
latitude south. From the same work, we find the distance 
from Sydney to Wellington to be 1,432 miles. The middle 
latitude is 37i°, and the difference of longitude 23° 36', which 
gives as the distance round the world at latitude 37^° south, 
25,500 satute miles ! This distance is again greater than the 
greatest distance round the " globe " is said to be and many 
thousands of miles greater than could be the case on a globe. 
Tlius, on purely practical data, apart fi-om any theory, the 
world is proved to diverge as the south is approached and not, 
to c&iivfrge, as it would do on a globe. 


It is in the nature of fiuids to be and remain level, and 
when that level is disturbed by any influence whatever, 
motion ensues until the level is resumed. 

Professor Airy tells us, in his " Six Lectures on Astro- 
nomy," that " quick-silver is perfectly fluid, its surface is 
perfectly horizontal." We may add that all fluids are the 
same, for the reason given by the next writer. 

Mr. W. T. Lynn, of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, 
in his "First Principles of Natural Philosophy," says : "the 
upper surface of a fluid at rest is a horizontal plane. Because 
if a part of the surface were higher than the rest, those parts 
of the fluid which were under it would exert a greater 
pressure upon the surrounding parts than they receive from. 


them, so that motion would take place amongst the particles 
and continue until there were none at a higher level than the 
rest, that is, until the upper surface of the whole mass of 
fluid became a horizontal plane." 

The English Mechanic of 26th June, 1896, says: 

" Since any given body of water must have a level 

surface, f.^., no one part higher than another, and seeing that all 
our oceans (a few inland seas excepted) are connected together, 
it follows that they are all VIRTUALLY OF THE SAME 

In March, 1870, the Bedford Canal was chosen to ex- 
periment upon with a view of determining whether water was 
horizontal or convex. 

The following argument is taken from the report as 
printed in the field for 26th March, 1870, and is considered 
to be sufficient and unanswerable : — 

" The stations appeared, to all intents and purposes, equi- 
distant in the field ot view, and also in a regular series ; first, the 
distant bridge; secondly, the central signal; and, thirdly, the 
horizontal cross-hair marking the point of observation ; showing 
that the central disc 13 ft. 4 in. high does NOT depart from a 
straight line taken from end to end of the six miles in any way 
whatever, either laterally or vertically. For, if so, and (as in 
the case of the disc 9 ft. 4 in. high) if it were lower or nearer the 
water, it would appear, as that disc does, nearer to the distant 
bridge. If it were higher, it would appear in the opposite 
direction nearer the horizontal cross- hair which marks the point 
ot observation. As the disc 4 ft. lower appears near to the 
distant bridge, so a disc to be really 5 ft. higher would have to 
appear still nearer to the horizontal cross-hair of the telescope. 
And therefore it is shown that a straight line from one point to 
the other passes through the central point in its course, and that 
a curved surface of water has not been demonstrated.*' 

In ** Theoretical Astronomy," page 47, it is stated : 

" On the Royal Observatory wall at Greenwich is a bi^iss 
plate, which states that a certain horizontal mark is 154 feet 
above mean water at Greenwich and 155.7 ^^^^ above mean 
water at Liverpool." 

The difference of the level between Liverpool and Green- 
wich is thus shewn to be only 1.7 feet. If the world were a 
globe, the difference of level would be many thousands of 
feet. It is a common saying that water will find its level, 
and it is true. If water be dammed back, it will, as soon as 
released, take the easiest course to where it can find its level. 
The following from the Natal Mercury of 24th October, 1898, 
fully illustrates this point ; 



London, Oct. 19 (Diggers' News Special). — The steamer 
Blanche Rock, whilst entering the Morpeth Dock, P#irkenhead, 
burst the dock gates. The water inside, which was 8 ft. higher 
than the level of the river, rushed out with tremendous force. 
The swirling mass of water damaged the shipping, and beached 
and sank a number of barges. Two lives were lost. 

As soon as the water got to the level of the river, its 
power would cease. 

C. Darwin, in his •* Voyage of a Naturalist," page 328, 
tells us : 

" I was reminded of the Pampas of Buenos Ayres, by seeing 
the disc of the rising sun, intersected by an horizon LEVEL AS 

A globe with level oceans would be a new thing in 
geography ! 


In the ** History of the Conflict between Religion and 
Science," by J. W. Draper, page 153, we are informed that 

" An uncritical observation of the aspect of nature persuades 
us that the earth is an extended level surface which sustains the 
dome of the sky, a firmament dividing the waters above from 
the waters beneath ; that the heavenly bodies — the sun, the 
moon, the stars — pursue their way, moving from east to west, 
their insignificant size and motion round the motionless earth 
proclaiming their inferiority. Of the various organic forms 
surrounding man none rival him in dignity, and hence he seems 
justified in concluding that everything has been created for his 
use — the sun for the purpose of giving him light by day, the 
moon and stars by night." 

A critical observation of Nature, I may say, persuades 
an intelligent and unbiassed mind that ** seeing is believing," 
and that, therefore, the world is not the globe of modern 
ideas. Dr. Draper further tells us, on page 156 of his book : 

" Many ages previously a speculation had been brought from 
India to Europe by Pythagoras. It presented the sun as the 
centre of the system. Around him the planets revolved in cir- 
cular orbits, their order of position being Mercury, Venus, Earth, 
Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, each of them being supposed to rotate 
on its axis, as it revolved round the 3un« 

s amazing distance, ani] ihcrefvrt of his enormous size. The 
heliocentric system, thus regarding the sun as the central orb, 
degraded the earth to a ver>- subordinate ranli, making her only 
one of a company of six revolving bodies." 

This hpeculatton (apt word this) has been shown in the 
foregoing pages to be without the slightest foundation in 
fact, and the world shown to be a plane and not a globe. 

In "Modem Science and Modern Thought," by S. Laing, 
the following imaginative proof of the globular figure of the 
earth is brought forward : 

" If, for instance, by travelling 65 miles from North to 
South, we lower the apparent height of the Pole Star one degree, 
IT IS MATHEMATICALLY CERTAIN that we have travelled 
this 65 miles, not along a flat surface, but along a circle which is 
three hundred and sixty timds 65, or, in round numbers, 24,000 

miles In circumference, and 8,oou miles in diameter and 

that the form of the earth is a perfect sphere of these dimensions." 

And on pages 162 and 163 the following is the continua- 
tion of the same ridiculous argument : 

" Until theCape was doubled, the course of De Gama's ships 
was in 3 general manner southward. Verj- soon it was noticed 
that the elevation of the Pole Star above the horizon was 
diminishing, and soon after the equator was reached the star 
had ceased to be visible. Meantime other stars, some of them 
forming magnificent constellations, had come into view — the 
stars of the Southern hemisphere. ALL THIS WAS IN 

If we select a flat street a mile long, containing a row of 
lamps, it will be noticed that from where we stand the lamps I 
gradually decline to the ground, the last one being ap- 
parently quite on the ground, Take the lamp at the end of 
the street and walk away from it a hundred yards, and it 
will appear to be much nearer the ground than when we 
were close to it ; keep on walking away from it and it will 
appear to be gradually depressed until it is last seen on the 
ground and then disappears. Now, according to the astro- 
nomers, the whole mile was only depressed about eight 
inches from one end to the other, so that this 8 in. could not 
account for the enormous depression of the light as we 
recede from it. This proves that the depression of the Pole 
Star can and does take place in relation to a flat surface, 
jimply because we increase our distance from it, the sam 


1 the street lamp. In other words, the further away we 
get h^om any object above us, as a star for example, the more 
it is depressed, and if we go far enough it will sink {or appear- 
to sink) to the horizon and then disappear. The writer has_^ 
tried the street lamp many times with the same result. 


R. A. Proctor, in his work " Our place among Infinities,'n 
pages 9 and lo, tells us that the earth was once a mass i 
glowing vapour, 

" capturing tben as now, but far more actively then tbaitl 
now, masses of matter which approached near enough, aiull 
GROWING by these continualindraufshts from without .... 

all that is within and upon the earth are formed o 

materials which have been drawn in from these depths of space 1 

surrounding us on all sides particles drawn in towar^f 

the earth by processes aintinuiiig miUUms and millions of ages." 

This is written with as much authority as the writer 
could have had, had he been present when the supposed 
" spark " was " shot off from the sun." He writes as though 
he had carefully watched the spark grow bigger, age by age, 
until it assumed the proportions it had when it " began to 
cool down." He tells his story as though he had been an 
eye-witness of al! the supposed processes during all the 
supposed " countless ages " until propotoplasm made its 
appearance and life began to evolve upon the supposed 
globe. The reader is made to understand, from the 
"scientific" manner in which the mythical story-teller 
unfolds his mythical tale, that he, the retailer of the story, 
carefully watched the evolution of the earth until the time 
came when the astronomers were able to tell us "without 
the fear of contradiction " that the earth actually had taken 
all these millions of ages to evolve into its present form and 
size. Marvellous, is it not, and how very scientific, to be 
sure ! The reader may pass over the whole of the foregoing 
extract from the pen of " the greatest astronomer of the age," 
for there is not one word of truth in it. It is the product of 
a fertile imagination, nothing more. 

The world is much the same as it was in the days 
of our grandfathsrs, only the people now are more infidi ' 
they were in those days. And since its c 

^than they 


it has not greatly altered, except as it has been altered 
by the universal flood in the time of that righteous man 
Noah. The flood disturbed the " strata " of the earth and 
broke up its layers, hence we find the bones of men and 
animals beneath the "crust,** which fact causes infidel 
scientists, who are seeking a proof of the untruth of the 
Bible, to believe that the earth is many millions of ages old, 
and therefore not the earth of the creation as recorded in 
Genesis. The poet Cowper has well said 

" Hear the just law, the judgment of the skies, 
He that hates TRUTH shall be the dupe of lies ; 
And he that WILL be cheated to the last, 
Delusions, strong as hell, shall bind him fast." 


The " law of gravitation " is said by the advocates of the 
Newtonian system of astronomy, to be the greatest discovery 
of science, and the foundation of the whole of modern 
astronomy. If, therefore, it can be shown that gravitation 
is a pure assumption, and an imagination of the mind only, 
that it has no existence outside of the brains of its expounders 
and advocates, the whole of the hypotheses of this modern 
so-called science fall to the ground as flat as the surface of 
the ocean, and this ** most exact of all the sciences," this 
wonderful ** feat of the intellect " becomes at once the most 
ridiculous superstition and the most gigantic imposture to 
which ignorance and credulity could ever be exposed. 

In the "Story of the Heavens,'* by Sir R. Ball, it is 
stated on page 82 

"The law of gravitation, THE GREATEST DISCOVERY 
that science has yet witnessed,'' 

"The law of gravitation WHICH UNDERLIES THE 

Page 10 1 

" The law of gravitation announces that every body in the 
universe attracts every other body with a force which varies 
inversely with the square of the. distance." 

** Popular Science Recreations/* by G. Tissandier, pages 
486 and 487, contains the following : 

" Gravitation is the force which keeps the planets in their 

*• Every object in the world tends to attract every other 
object in proportion to the quantity of matter 0/ which each consists,'' 


Carpenter, in his work " Xature and ' 

Man," page 365, says : 

" ' The laws of light and gravitation," wrote Mr, Atkinson to . 
Harriet Martineau, 30 years ago, ' extend over the universe, and J 
explain whole classes of phenomena,' and this explanation, T 
according to the same'writer, is all-sutlicient, ■ Philosophy finding 1 
;w Gud in mturc, NOK SEEING THE WANT OF ANY." '" 

C. Vernon Boys, F.R.S,, A.R.S.M., M.R.L, in his ] 

paper, " The Newtonian Constant of Gravitation," says : 

" G, represents that mighty principle under the influence c 


which evecj' star, planet and satellite 
allotted course. Unlike anj^ other ki 
s independent of uiedtitm, it knows n 

the universe pursues Iti 
wn physical induenc 
refraction, it cannot 
It 15 a mysterious power whiuh NO MAN < 

ALL MEN ARE IGNORANT I cannot contemplate 

" ' wstery, at which we ignorantiv wonder, without thinking of 

iltar on Mars" hill, When will a St. Paul arise able to 

declare it nnto ns ? Or is gravitation, like life, a mystery that 

'er be solved ? "' — Proceedings of llm Royal I'lstltulion of' 

Great Britain. March 1H95, p. 355. 

Law," published in the " Modern Review " for October, 
1S90, says : 

" The first of the great achievements of Newton in relation 
to our present subject, was a piece of purely Geometrical reason- 
ing. ASSUMING two forces to act on a body, of which one 
should be capable of imparting to it uniform motion in a straight 
line, whilst the other should attract it towards a fixed point in 
lUCG with Galileo's law of gravity, he demonstrated that 
the path of the body would be duflected into a curve ..... 
The idea of continuous onward motion in a straight line, as the 
result of an original impulsive force not antagonised ot '^ ' ■" 
by any other — formularised by Newton as his first 
motion '—is not borne out by auy acquired experience, and does 
not seem likely to be ever thus verified. For in no experiment 
we have it in our power to make, can we entirely eliminate the 
I antagonising effects of friction and atmospheric resistance 1 and 
I thus all movement that is subject to this retardation, and is not 
L sustained by any fresh action of the impelling force, must come 
T to an end. Hence the conviction commonly entertained that 
Newton's first ' law ' of motion must be true, cannot be philoso- 
phically admitted to be anything more than a probability 

Newton himself strongly felt that the impossibility oi rationally 
L (tCQountins for action at a distance through an intervening va^umiv. 



was the weak point of HIS system. All that we can be said to 
know is that which we learn from our own experieoce. Now. 
in regard to the Sun's attraction for the Earth and Planets, WE 
could be transported to his surface, we have no means of experi- 
mentally comparing Solar gravity with Terrestrial gravity ; and 
if we cotild ascertain this, we should be no nearer the determina- 
tion of his attraction for bodies at a distance. THE DOCTRINE 

In " Letters to the British Association," Professor 
Bernstein says : 

*' The theory that motions are produced through material 

attraction is absurd Attributing such a power to mere 

matter, which is PASSIVE BY NATURE, is a supreme illosion. 
.... it is a lovely and easy theory to satisfy any man's mind, 
but when the practical test comes, it falls all to pieces and becomes 
one of the most ridiculous theories to common sense and 

The following extracts are taken from " A Million of 
Facts," by Sir Richard Phillips : 

"If the sun has any power, it must be derived from motion ; 
and if acting on bodies at a distance, like Jupiter on his moons, 
or the Earth on its moon, THERE MUST BE AN INTER- 

'* It is a principle never to be lost sight of, that circular 
motion is a necessary result of equal action and reaction in 
contrary directions; for the harmony would be disturbed by 
variation of distance, if the motion were rectilinear. The same 
action and reaction are therefore only to be preserved by 
reciprocal circular motion. NO ATTRACTION AND NO 
THEIR invention must be regarded AS BLUNDERS OF A 

'* If the bodies came near while moving THE SAME WAY, 
there would be no mutual REACTION, and they would go 
together for want of reaction, and NOT OWING TO THAT 

UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION to the phenomena of the 
Planets, astronomers have preferred to change the mean density 
of matter itself ; and the Earth, for comparison, being taken at a 
density of i,ooo, to accommodate Mercury to THE ASSUMED 
LAW, it is taken as 2,585; Venus, 1,024; Mars, 656; Jupiter, 
201 ; Saturn, 103 ; and Herschel, 218. Consequently, we have 
the paradox, that Jupiter, 1,290 times larger than the Earth, 
contains but 323 times more atoms. Saturn 1,107 times larger, 
but 114 times more atoms. Even the Sun, aQcordiDg to these 


' theoristR, is but one-fourtli the density of the Earth! There " 
may be differences, but chemistry and ail the laws that unite 
aud compound atoms, are utterly at vuriwice with so rash and 
wild an hypothesis." 

" II is waate of time to break a butterfly on a wheel, but aa 
astronomy and all science is beset with fancies about attraction . 
and repulsion, it is necessary to eradicate Ihem. I 

c ' 



" It there are two bodies, and it is required to move A to C, 
the force moving A to C must proceed from the side A. Either 
some impact, or some involvement of a motion towards C, must 
act at A to carry A to C, The modern schools, however, assert 
that B may move A to C, and A move B to C; and this is 
mutual atlrarlion I ! Hence it is necessary to believe that B acts 
on the side A, where B is not present ; and that A acts on B oql 
the side B, where A is not present. In other words, A is requiredl 
to be where it is not, and also be in force at A, so as to 
B to C I all of whicti is absurd." 

'If in any case A and B approach, it is not because a1 
moves B towards itself, or B moves A towards itself, but owing 1 
to some causes which afTect the space in which A and B i 
situated ; and which causes act on A at A, and on B at B . . 
the statement that A moves B, and B moves A, is ignorance, a 
is what is meant bv attraction. It is also worse than ignorancitL 
to justKy idleness by asserting that the true cause is indifferent ;■ 
or to justify ignorance, by asserting that it is unknowable 1 1" w 

"This reasoning applies to every species of Attraction^ 
whatever may be the pomposity of equivocal terms in which it In 
described. Universally, bodies cannot push other bodies towards 

o* °0 

" If A and B are said to repel one another, and that 1 
mattes A move to C, and A makes B move to D, we have to bearj 
in mind, that while A is moving to C it is in force only in thatm 
((iVerftoH, and ffinnoi. therefore, be "lOfiMff B towards D. lu Ukufl 
manner, while B is moving to D, it is in force only in thufm 
direction, and cannot, therefore, be in force in the contrary^ 
direction so as to move A to C," Every species and variety of 
Attraction and Repulsion are therefore absurd. 

MOTION. If a body moves, it is because it is the patient of 
some sufiicient momentum of tjody or matter acting ON the side 
FROM which the body moves, and only in force in that direction." 
" Some adopters of attraction, &c., talk, by false analogy, of 
drawing, others of palling, lifting, &c. La Place INVENTS 
gravitating atoms, and gives them a velocity of 6,ooo times that 
of light, which in some way (known only to himself) performs 
the work of bringing the body in ; others IMAGINE little books I 

, As to drawing, pulling, itc, it bthovts them to i'leic the (ncS/c— the 

f levers, the ropes, St,c," _ , ,„. 


" In spite ot all the learning, iogeouity, and elaborations of 
men, confessedly very ablu, if there is not and cannot be any 
action of the nature of attraction, and if the phenomena ascribed 
to it are local eflects of palpable local causes, and if all the 
phenomena and involvement maybe clearlv explained on different 
principles, then it may be to be lanientetl ihat so much ability 
and character should have been wasted, while a reject for 
truth and sound reasoning demands that the whole sbould bo 

Professor Airy, in his " Lectures on Astronomy," 5th 
Edition, page 194, informs us 

" Newton was the hrst person who made a calculadoa of the 
figure ot the earth on the theory of gravitation. He took the 
rollowing SUPPOSITION as the only one to which his theory 
could be applied. He ASSUMED the earth to be a fluid. This 
fluid matter he ASSUMED to he equally dense in every part. 
.... For trial of his theory he SUPPOSED the ASSUMED 
fluid earth to be a spheroid. In this iiiaiinct he INFERRED 
that the fonu of the earth would be a splierold, in which the 
length of the shorter is to the longer, or equatorial diameter, in 
the proportion of ag to 2jo." 

The " New Principia," by X. Crossland, contains the 
following : 

" In ascending a hill we experience a hard struggle, and feel 
e fati^ied than when walliing on level ground. 'A'hyis this ? 
The Newtonian attributes this to the attraction of gravitation of 
the earth, against the fiull of which we have to contend ; but if 
he would be consistent with his theory tliat the attraction of 
gravitation dimiiiislies inversely as the square ot the distance 
from the centre ot the earth, we ought, in defiance of experience, 
to feel it to be less laborious to ascend a hill than to promenade 
the same distance on level ground, because as we ascend we 
recedt from the centre of the earth ; therefore the force of gravi- 
tation ought to diminish in a corresponding degree. The 
Newtonian can only get over this diiticulty by a species of 
scientific quibbhng. According to the definition of weiglit I 
have given, the solution of the problem is perfectly simple. In 
ascending a hill a man comes in conflict with the law that the 
natural tendency of any body is to seel; the easiest and shortest 
route to its level of stability. He chooses the very reverse, and 
must therefore endure the consequences of acting in opposition 
to this law. At every step he has to lift his ou'ii weight, and the 
higher he mounts the more he feels the influence of the law 
which he defies. His easiest and more direct course to obey the 
law of weight is to remain where he is; the next is to descend to 
a lower level. 

" The attraction of gravitation is said to be stronger at the 
surface of the earth than at a distance horn it. Is it so ? If I 
spring upwards perpendicularly I cannot with all my might 
ascend more than four feet from the ground ; but if I jump in a 
e with a low trajectory, Iteeping my highest elev^tum aboi 


41 I 

three feet, I might clear at a bound a space above the earth at 
about eighteen feet; so that practically I can overcame thn 
so-CH.1lcd force (pull) at the distance of foiu* feet, in the proportioi^ 
of i8 to 4. being the atry revvnt of what I ought to be able to doj 
according to the Newtonian hypothesis. , 

" Again, lake the case of a shot propelled from a cannong 
B_v the force of the explosion and the influence of the repiitecB 
action of f^avitation, the shot forms a parbolic curve, anv 
finally falls to the earth. Here we may ask, wby^f the forces 
are the same, viz., direct impulse and gravitation — does not the 
shot form an orbit like that of a planet, and rpvolve round the 
earth? The Newtonian may reply, becanse the impulse which 
propelled the shot is temporary ; and the impulse which propelled 
the planet is permanent. Precisely so: but jahy is the impulf- 
ptrmaniHt in the case of the planet revolving round the sun 
What is the cause of this permanence ? 

" We are asked by the Newtonian to beUeve that the action' 
of gravitation, which we can easily overcome by the slightest 
exercise of volition in raising a hand or a foot, is so overwhelm- 
ingly violent when we lose oar balance and fall a distance of a 
few feet, that this force, which is imperceptible nnder usual 
conditions, may, under extraordinary circumstances, cause the 
fracture of every limb we possess ? Common-sense must reject 
this interpretation. Gravitation does not furnish a satisfactory 
explanation of the phenomena here described, whereas the 
definition of weight already given does, for a body seeking in 
the readiest manner its level of stability would produce precisely 
the results experienced. If the inOuence which kept us securely 
attached to this earth were identical with that which is powerful 
enough to disturb a distant planet in its orbit, we should be more 
immediately consciouR of its masterful presence and potency ; 
whereas this influence is so impotent in the very spot where it is 
supposed to be moat dominant that we find an insurmountable 
difficulty in accepting the idea of lis existence. Fortunately for 
our faculty of locomotion, the Newtonian hypothesis may 
rejected as a snare and a delusion. 

" It is quite amusing to watch Newtonians and Darwiniai 
floundering about in their attempts to expound the r 
creation. Their theories are as ridiculous as the fashion which 
once prevailed for Della-Cruscan poetry, and they ought to be 
treated with equal severity, 

" It seems quite possible that during the last two hundred 
years we have been living in a sort of scientific fool's paradine, 
and that universal gravitation is a gigantic Newtonian mare's 

" As a theoretical scientltic guide we must give up Sir Isaac 
Newton as useless and misleading, and allow his reputation to 
retire into private life. 

" In Kmvled^t of the 17th and i^lh Feb., 1S82, there 
appeared a discourse on The Birth nf Hit Mimn liy Tidal Evolution, 
by Dr. Hall, the Astronomer Royal for Ireland, which I should 
6ay is without exception, ih^ most delusive and absurd contribution 
ever made to so-called science. At one time I thought that 
" Parallax," who told us that the earth was a flat plane like a 
plate, was the most misguided man in- the kingdom, but I now 


for li 

believe Ihat he is quite entitled to take rank in scientific wisdom, 
and to at down on an equality with the Astronomer Royal of 

I have quoted at length on this important matter, and 
the evidence here produced, besides very much more in the 
same direction, for which I have not the space here, shows 

One of the world's so-called great thinkers, J. S. Mill, is 
quoted in Professor Carpenter's " Nature and Man," page 
3S5, as saying: 

" Although we speak of a man's fall as caused by the alippiog 
of his foot, or the breaking of a rung (as the case may bei 1/M 
EARTH, which the loss of support to the man's foot brings into 

It a man is not "deeper" than to believe what this 
" deep " thinker has left on record in this matter ; if he 
has no more brain power than to accept the foregoing state- 
ment, I would strongly advise him to cease thinking alto- 
gether, and thus save the few brains he has. It is simply 
astounding that men, who in business matters are sharp 
enough, are as dull as bricks and as credulous as children 
when the awe-inspiring subject of gravitation, " that grand 
masterpiece of astronomy," is the theme. To ask the reason 
why, or to venture to suggest that the assumptions of the 
" learned " require some sort of proof to back them up, never 
seem.s to strike moderns who believe in this monstrous 
humbug. A. Giberne, in " Sun, Moon, and Stars," page 27, 
says : 

" If the sun is ptilhng with such power at the earth and all 
her sister planets, why do they not fall down upon him ? " 

A very proper question, truly. And when this question 
is propounded to astronomers, they cannot give an answer 
worth recording. They simply do not know how to answer 
the question without stultifying their common-sense. But 
the above writer thinks it can be answered, so says : 

t" Did you ever tie a ball to a string and swing it rapidly 
round and round your head ? If you did, VOU MUST HAVE 

The " steady outward pull of the ball" clearly implies 

that the ball has intelligenct, and knows just what to do so 

prevent its hitting the head of the operator. The 


* outward pull " of a ball which is fastened to the hand of 
the operator by a string, is clearly impossible. If the 
operator ceased lo impel it round and round his head by the 
mechanical attachment and the power he exerts in swinging 
it round, the ball would seek its level of stability and (all to 
the ground. And, as this illustration is used to teach what 
gravitation is, and how it acts, we shall just follow the illus- 
tration to its logical issue, and see where the theory is. 
The illustration implies that BETWEEN ALL THE J 
NECTING LINK, which keeps the "body" that attract* j 
attached to the "body" that is attracted. This connecting! 
link, in the case of the ball, is the string, Now, we could J 
readily understand gravitation if this, illustration conveyed to 
us by the ball and the string were a correct representation of 
fact. But, we very naturally ask, what is the connecting link ? 
Of what does it consist ■ And ot what do all the connecting 
links between the sun and the myriad orbs of heaven consists 
Would not the "strings" get somewhat entangled? Has j 
this connecting link ever been observed anywhere ? The ] 
answer to these pertinent questions is that THERE IS NO 
CONNECTING LINK in existence. When the " missing 
link ■' is produced, we are prepared to admit all the gravita- 
tion theorists teach on the subject. Until then we shi(ll 
continue to regard it as the myth it undoubtedly is. But we 
are not done with the illustration yet. The " ball and 
string " device sets forth that the " body " that attracts is not 
only connected with the " body " attracted, but that the 
— that the sun is the power which compels the earth to | 
revolve round it, even as the motive power of the ball is the 
exertion of the hand of the operator. Without the connecting 
link the earth would fall (according to the astronomers) in a 
rectilinear path for ever. But what these wise men do not 
see, and which is a necessary part of the theory, as repre- 
sented by the ball and string idea, is that the motive power 
also must come from the sun. Without this motive power 
and the connecting link, the whole of the theory falls to 
Stnsr TO CAUSE the earth to REVOLVE AROUND 
IN ITS POSITION, consequently the theory of universal 
gravitation has tio existence in fact. " He who cantwt reason 
I fool ; he who isill not reason is a bigot ; he who dares not 



reason is a coward ; but he who can and dares to reason is a 

If the reader can and dares to reason, let him reason 
this matter out and discover w^hether astronomy as drummed 
into children's heads at school, and vauntingfly displayed, 
with many pictures, from public platforms, has one inch of 
standing ground, or one reason to offer as an apology for its 
further existence and power to befool mankind longer. These 
are stiong statements, but not stronger than the facts 

" The Story of the Heavens," by Sir Robert Ball, is not 
only an authoritative treatise, which it is, coming from such 
a recognised exponent of the " science " ; but a fidsdme 
account of general principles and details in popular form. 
As a literary production, it possesses considerable merit, and 
its good English entitles it to the respect and consideration 
of all its readers. But as a contribution to science, it is the 
most absurd and unreasoning conglomeration of nonsensical 
and impossible ideas I have ever read. 

On page i lo of this book, we read that 

" Kepler found that the movements of the planets could be 
explained by supposing that the path in which each one revolved 
was an eUipse. This in itself was a DISCOVERY of the most 
commanding importance." 

To explain anything by a supposition, and then to label the 
supposition a discovery is ridiculous in the ** domain of 
science '' and a marvel of literary ingenuity. 

On the same page, the first law of planetary motion is 
enunciated in these words, '^ each planet revolves around 
the sun in an elliptical path, having the sun as one of the 
foci," and on page 1 1 2 the ellipse is shown with the sun in 
one focus. Throughout the book, however, the other focus 
is not mentioned, and it is very evident from the diagfram 
that if the sun wer*^ of sufficient power to retain the earth in 
its orbit when nearest the sun, when the earth arrived at 
that part of its elliptical path farthest from the sun, the 
attractive force ''unless very greatly increased) would be 
utterly incaf)ab)e of i>reventing the earth rushing away into 
space ** in a right lin'i for ever," as astronomers say. 

On the other hand, it is equally clear that if the sun's 

attraction were just sufficifjnt to keep the earth in its proper 

lath when farthest from the sun, and thus to prevent it 

Ufthing off into space ; the same power of attraction when 

rth was nearest the sun would be so much greater, 


(unless the attraction were very greatly diminished) 
nothing would prevent the e^rth rushing towards and being 
absorbed by the sun, there being no counterbalancing focus 
to prevent such a catastrophe! As astronomy makes no 
reference to the increase and diminution of the attractive 
force of the sun, called gravitation, for the above necessary 
purposes, we are again forced to the conclusion that the 
great " discovery " of which astronomers are so proud is 
absolutely non-existent. The law of dynamics, assisted by 
geometry, makes it, as the learned say, " mathematicallyi 
certain " that no such force as gravitation exists anywhere- 
in the universe. As another has well said, its invention 
must be regarded as a blunder of a superstitious age. 

If the earth were the globe of astronomical invention, 
and if gravitation were needed to keep it in its path around 
the sun, it is easily seen that gravitation must be circular, 
as then and then only, would the attraction be equal in 
every part of the path, and so cause the earth to describe an 
exact circle through'jut the year. Astronomers say that the 
earth moves and not the sun. And that this movement of 
the earth causes the seasons. And further, that the 
ment of the sun which we see is really caused by the 
movement of the earth. If, therefore, the sun appears to 
make an exactly circular path every day of the year, there 
might be some ground for the astronom;rs' supposition of 
gravitation. That the sun's path is an exact circle for only 
about four periods in a year, and then of only a few hi 
at the equinoxes and solstices — completely disproves the. 
" might have been " of circular gravitation, and by conse- 
quence, of all gravitation. 

It has long been pointed out that gravitation, if it 
existed at all, must be circular, as the following from 
Drapers' " Conflict between Religion and Science," page 168, 
shows : 

" Astronomers justly affirm that the book of Copernicus, 

■ De Revoiutionibus,' changed the face of their science. It 
inooDtestabty established the heliocentric theory. It showed 
that the distance of the fixed stars is infinitely great, and that 
the earth is a mere point in the heavens. Anticipating Newton, 
Copernicus imputed gravity to the sun, the moon and heavenly 
bodies, hut he was led astray by assuming that the celestial 
motions must be circular. Observations on the orbit of Mars, 
and his different diameters at diiTerent times, had led Copernicus 
to this theory." 

That the paths of the orbs of heaven are not exactly circular 
I -,4i8prove5 the theory of gravitation entirely. 

■it is impossible to make a ball tied to the Ka.ixA. Vx'Ocv 





rcular ^^| 



string revolve in an elliptical path, circular "motro^^on^' 

being possible. So we may consign the illustration, 
together with the thing it is intended to illustrate, into 

The volume already quoted, "Sun, Myon, and Stars," 
state.<t, on page 73, that 

" Comets obey the attraction of the sun.jri lu appears to have 
u singular pms'er oj driving tin cnnids' tails awiiy from himself. For, 
howe\'cr rapidly the comet may be rushing round the sun, and 
however long the tail mav be, IT IS ALMOST ALWAYS 
Herw we have an acknowledged failure of the law of gravita- 
tion, which is said to be universal. Now comes a declaration 
which supports my contention that gravitation is non- 

In " Science and Culture," by Professor T. H. HUXLEY, 
page 136, the following statement is made : 

'■ If the la* of gravitation EVER FAILED TO BE TRUE, 

EVEN TO THE SMALLEST EXTENT, for that period, the 



After such an "authoritative" declaration, we may well 

dismiss the subject, and we are fairly entitled to conclude, 

with such a concensus of evidence against the commonly 

received "view" of gravitation, together with the application 

of the principles of sound logic, that GRAVITATION HAS 


idea of such a force must be relegated to the limbo 




i ofl 

In " Geology," by Skertchley, page loi, it is confessed : 

" So imperfect is the record of the earth's history as told in 

the rocks, that we can ne\'er hope to fill up completely all the 

gaps in the chain of life. The testimony of the rocks has tjeen 

well compared to a history of which only a few imperfect volumes 

remain to us, the missing portions of which we can only (ill up 

by conjecture. What botanist but would despair of restoring 

the vegetation of wood and field from the dry leaves that autumn 

scatters ? Vet from less than this the geologist has to form all 

his ideas of past floras. Can we wonder then at the imperfection 

of the geological world ? *' 

The Vice-President of the Royal Geographical Society 

of Ireland holds that this, the otiVy p-a-TtV, -wa.^ made during 

^;jt successive periods, correspondm^ to s' 

?> q\^ t^^^^^ 


'^hd that particles of mud and sand deposited by rivers in Sea 
bottoms could only become rocks of a heterogeneous mixture, 
but never such as the primary with sub-divisions, having" 
each its own marked peculiarities. In his "Errors of Geo- 
Ipgists," page 15, he says: 

" Neither the brown gneiss, nor the primary red sandstone, 

L nor the yellow tjuartz rock, nor the gray mica slate, nor the blue 

^^^^^B limestone. Not one band o'lt of all these could be formed out 

^^^^L of the river sediment coming down from the pre-existing 

^^^^B continents, because not one of them has mixed particles. The 

^^^^B quarts rock has no lime, the limestone is purely crystalline, &c," 

^^^^ Although the deepest mine in the world is only a few 

thousand feet down, the assertions of geologists that they 

know what underlies the " crust" of the earth to a depth of 

4,000 miles, are received as though they had actually been 

down making a personal inspection and favoured the world 

with the result of their researches. Sir D. Brewster, in his 

I More Worlds than One," says : 
W "The proportional thickness of these different formatiopB 

■ have been cstimaM by Professor Phillips as follow, but the 
^t numbers can be regarded only as a very rude estimate : — Tertiary 
H 20D0 feet, Cretaceous 1000 feet, Oolite and Lias 2500 feet, New 
H Red Sandstone 2000 feet, Carboniferous 10,000 feet, Old Red 
H Sandstone 9000 feet, Primary Rocks, equals NINE 
■ MILES nearly." 
H " On these ASSUMED data they founded different theoriw 

V of volcanoes." 
P ■' It is TAKEN FOR GRANTED that many of the stratified 

p rocks were deposited at the bottom of the sea by the same slow 

W processes which are now going on in the present day." 
Almost ne^'dless to remark that whatever speculations 
nave nothing better than "taken for granted" to support 
I them, must be rejected as purely fanciful and utterly incapable 
of proof. Geologists are very fond of parading their know- 
ledge (:) of what they are pleased to term the " glacial 
period " of the earth's history. Sir R. Ball writes a book on 
*' The Cause of an Ice Age." But he vitiates the entire 
s by stating; 

"1 have found it necessary to ASSUME the existence ofl 
several ice ages," 
He then goes on to endeavour to prove his assumption 
to be correct by stating ; 

" In fact it might almost be said that the astronomical; 
theory (of accounting for ice ages) must be necessarily true, as 
i; is a strictly mathematical ciiiiseqtiencc FROM THE LAWS OF 


We have already seen that thtr. ma.%vcaX, xtvie'Kti.^As., 
■^^t-do-you-call'it influence l3^iMiai^^^S^ts-^^-^ii 

therefore, reject the learned writer's "mathematical conse- 
quence " as a myth. 

In his " Second Appeal to Common-sense from the Ex- 
travagance of some Recent Geology," Sir H. H. Howorth, 
K.C.I.E., M.P., F.R.S., F.G.S,, says : 

" One of the chief objects of this book is to show that the 
Glacial theory, as usually taught, is not sound ; but that it 

i ignores, and is at issue with, the laws which govern the move- 

ments of ice, while the geological phenomena to be explained 
refuse to be equated with it. This is partially acknowledged by 
the principal apostles of the ice theory. They admit that ice as 
we know it in trie laboratory, or ice as we know it in glaciers, 
acts qnite differently (o the ice they postulate, and produces 
different effects; but we are bidden to put aside our puny 
experiments which can be tested, and turn from the glaciers 
which can be explored and examined, to the vast potentiality of 
ice in shape of portentous tee-sheets beyond the reach of 
empirical tests, and which we are told acted quite differently to 

ordinary ice. That is to say, they appeal from sublunary 
■ ' 1 fro: * ■ ' ■ ' 

experiments to d priori argument drawn from a transcendeotal 
world. Assuredly this is a curious position for the champions 
of uniformity to occupy." 

" I bold that the Glacial Theor3', as ordinarily taught, is 
based, not upon induction, but upon hypotheses, same of which 
are incapable of verification, while others can be shown to be 
false, and it has all the Infirmity of the science of the Middle 
Ages. This is why I have called it a Glacial Nightmare. 
Holding it to be false, I hold further that no theory of modem 
times has had a more disastrously mischievous effect upon the 
progress ot Natural Science." 

■' I not only disbelieve in, but I utterly deny, the possibility 
of ice having moved over hundred of miles of level country, 
such as we see in Poland and Russia, and the prairies of North 
America, and distributed the drift as we find it there. I furt;her 
deny its capacity to mount long slopes, or to traverse uneven 
ground. I similarly deny to it the excavating and denuding 
power which has been attributed to it by those who claim it as 
the excavator of lakes and valleys, and I altogether questioii the 
legitimacy of arguments based upon a supposed physical 
capacity which cannot be tested by experiment, and which is 
entirely based upon hypothesis. This means that I utterly 
question the prime postulate of the glacial theory itself." 
In the Scuniific American Supplement of loth Septem- 
ber, i8g8, in an article on " Glacial Geology in America," by 
H. L. Fairchild, the following is stated : 

" The cause of the glacial period remains quite as much a 

mystery as it was in 1840. A large body of fact has been 

collected, but it points in different directions. Every pirion has 

tntin liberty of opinion. MOST GLACIALISTS HAVE NO 


The reader need not trouble to have any opinion on the 

subject, for i/iere never was a glacial period tn the history of the 

world. We challenge the whole scientific world to prove 1" 



"A. Mclnnes, in his paper " The Flood and Geology," 
says : 

" Next, how was the flood cauaed ? Moses says by the 
opening of the netting {not windowat of heaven to pour down, and by the opening of the fountains of the great abyss of 
waters. What deplorable ignorance prevails regarding the true 
CODstitntion of the universe I The old pagan delusion of 
Pythagoras is now generally believed in opposition to common 
sense, reason, and God's own revelation — that men are now 
living on an impossible large ball of land and water, flashed 
above and round the sun more quickly than a thunderbolt. Thus 

apostle's prediction is fulfilled, that men in the last days 

would not endure sound doctrine, but would give heed to Cables. 

As of old so now, ■ they glorify not God, but have become vaip 

in their reasonings and their heart is darkened. " ' 

I themselves wise they have become fools.' — Romans i, 

"We have God's own revelation — Job xxxviii, — manifestly 
opposed to the fables now falsely called science. God asks Of 
Job—' Where wast thou when I laid the foundation (Heb. fixed) 
of the earth ? ' Where has the earth or land been fixed ? ' Ho 
has founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.' 
— Ps. xxiv. 2. ' The earth standing out of the water and in the 
water.' — znd Peter iii. 5. Thus the land does not, as is assumed 
without proof by modern astronomers, contain the sea ; but the 
sea coutains the land, and is the great abyss out of which the 
dry land appeared at God's creative word, — Gen. i. 9. Likewise, 
the antarctic icebergs surround the sea on every side, utterly 
I baffling all attempts of navigators to proceed further south. 
' Who shut up the sea with doors, and prescrilwd for it my 
decree, and set bars and doors, and said: "Hitherto sbalt thou 
come, hut no further ; and here shall thy proud waves be 
stayed,"?' — Job xxxviii. 8. Next, as to the structure of the 
earth it was asked : (v. 5) ' Who has set its layers ? ' or, ' laid its 
measures ? ' ' Or, who stretched out a measuring line upon it ? ' 
' On what are its bases (or sockets) sunk ? ' ' Or. who laid down 

tits key. stone rock ? ' This rendering is precisely according to 
the Hebrew. Now, does not the fifth verse plainly declare that 
the earth's strata or layers were arranged by God himself, and 
not according to suppositions of modern geologists? The layers 
are found to be set wiih the regularity and exactness of the 
stones of a house, and as if the builder's measuring line had 
been used. The unstratified or key-stone rock, whether basalt 
or granite, lowest en the sea, but above are the various beds 
according to density, such as sandstone, slate, limestone, coal, 
chalk, clay, with sand, gravel or soil on the surface. How the 
all-wise God did years ago prodiice by His almighty word 
the vast construction of the earth's interior in such wonderful 


as the geologists foolishly suppose. 

ways are not as man's nor His thoughts as ours. He also 
beginning made all the various kinds of animals, not according 
to a slow process of growth or development ; but the birds and 
fishes on the fifth day, beasts, creeping things and man on the 
sixth day, each kind separate from the other, contrary to tha 

be ^ 


atheistic suppositioD of evolution ; and the day limited by the 
evening and morning, 12 hours. 'Are there not 13 tiours in 
the day? ' asked the Lord, 

" Thus the whole mighty mass of rock, stratified and 
unstratified, has been made to float upon the unfathomable 
waters, yet as securely fixed as a ship in a Liverpool dock. The 
bases of the earth are so sunk as to make it immoveable forever. 
Man is challenged to tell how. ' Upon what are its bases sunk ?' 
^ob 38. ' He founded the earth on its hasis ; it is not moved 
forever and aver." — Pb, 104, 5, Now, why can an iron ship float, 
though that metal is seven times heavier than water ? Because, 
chiefly of the shape. Bui the heaviest rock is only three times 
the weight of wafer. Then consider the tremendous buoyancy 
of the ocean causing some substances to float on the surface, 
and others to sink only to a certain depth. The earth, its density 
decreasing from the foundation rock upwards to the soil of the 
surface, is sunk to a depth several miles in the sea, yet so as to 
have a dry surface, and shores on a level with the surrounding 
waters. It consists of four continents of an irregular and 
somewhat triangular shape, stretching out firom the central 
north, thousands of miles towards the icy barriers of the far 
south, against which winds and waves rage in vain. The conti- 
nents are connected by sub-marine rocky beds, varying in 
depth, whilst the Arctic and Antarctic oceans are found to be 

" The flood, as we have seen, was caused by the opening of 
the Dctting of heaven and the fountains of the abyss, The 
heaven or sky ' is an expanse for the clouds, strong as molten 
mirror.' — Job 37, 18; and was made on the second day of 
creation to separate the waters above from the waters below. 
' Hast thou come to the springs of the sea ? ' asks God — 38, 16. 
It was formerly the opinion of Christian writers that these springs 
or fountains are in tbe central north, confined by the impene- 
trable walls of ice, which were broken down at the flood. 
However, when Noah had entered the ark, from heaven and the 
abyss rushed the waters to fulfil God's purpose to destroy the 
earth with its inhabitants. Hence, the rending ot rocks, the 
shattering of hills, the breaking up of the earth's strata, the piling 
of mass upon mass, wherein were buried aniiuals and plants to 
be dug up many centuries afterwards. All lands were filled with 
the wreck of the old world — a terrible warning to all future ages 
against the commission of unrighteousness. 

'■ And, let it be noted that the petrifaction of fossils is not 
surprising, seeing that tbe earth was wholly sunk under the 
waters for a whole year. Even geologists confess that tbe degree 
of petrifaction is no proof of the antiquity of a foasU. ' The mere 
amount of change, then, which the fossil has undergone, is not 
by any means a proof of the length of time that has elapsed 
since it was buried in the earth ; as that amount depends so 
largely on the nature of the material in which it was entombed, 
and on the circumstances that have since surrounded it.' — 
Jukes, p. IL)0. 

"Then, what was the origin of the rocks, indeed of the 
entire earth ? Aqueous, according Vo Geneavs, \, \,^. 'In ihn 
beginning 0/ God's framing the tica-jcna a.vi4 fee ewrt.V^|^^ 


3 atoms and empty.' (Hebrew, 
looie atoms ? In the abyss of waters; and God on the. third 
day of creation consolidated all into rocks, stratified and 
unatratified, causing the land to appear, 

" But. why is man not found as a fossil embedded among 
the rocbs, as are the animals ? The answer is not ditHcult. 
Before the flood man was not so prolific as now. During the 
1656 years of the old world there were, according to Moses, only 
ten generations counting from Adam to Noah ; and Noah during' 
600 years had only three sons. Howe^'Cr. let us reckon approxi- 
mately the antediluvian population, allowing eight children to 
each couple, ist generation, z ; 2nd generation, 8 ; 3rd genera- 
tion, iz ; 4th generation, izS ; 5th generation, 512 1 6th generation, 
2.048 1 7tb generation, 8,192 ; Sth generation, 32,766 ; gth 
generation. 131,072; loth generation. 524,288, The sum is 
699,050 ; and the whole human population before the flood misiht 
not amount to one siirth oi the population of London, Bu it 
remembered that mankind in the old world dwelt in Asiatic 
Turkey, speaking the same language, and it was not till after 
Noah's death that the dispersion from Babel over the earth took 
place. Asiatic Turkey contains at present fifteen million human 
beings, and there only could fossilised man be fonnd. To what 
extent, if at all, has that country been geologically 

" Is it possible to deliver men from the spell and sorcery iif^J 
' great names ?■ If only a fable or lie is called scientific, and, 
'great u 

fathered by a writer reputed a 
believe at once without proof? 
from the worship of their fellow-w 
the worship of sticks and stones P 
of newspaper scribblers are larded ovi 
reputation of greatness is attained ; a 

,' how many thousands, 
IS hard to turn Hleft| 
o turn a Hindoo from 
The scientific favourites 
■ with flattery until th 
id to argue against pet 
scientific fictions is only Co provoke siliy jesting or astonishment 
at tne presumption of daring to differ from the scientific slave- 
drivers. Will any of their slaves of science dare be free, or use 
their common-sense ?" 

" Is geology not a tissue of suppositions from beginning to 
end ? Let us see. How do the Geologists manage to get dupes? 
Some disguised intidel who has had sufficient influence to obtain 
a professorship in a college writes a book about the Creation, in 
which he attempts to prove to the entire satisfaction of atheistic 
journalists that the world made itself without the help of God at all. 
Of course the blasphemous character ofthebookis carefully veiled, 
lest soft-headed religionists take alarm, and the book does not 
sell. Perhaps even a pious whine is dropped so that the woik of 
Judas may be done more effectually ; and the author is reputed 
BO very great a man, for all the newspapers say it. By way of 
preface astronomy is apjiealed to as a science so well-establi^ed 
that none but fools object to it ; therefore, the reader niuat 
imagine all the vast continents and oceans making up a ball no' 
larger than the school room globe. Next he is assured that 
recent researches in science have proved that those lights, the 

I, and stars, consist of the very same constituents 

the earth and sea, as welt as the nebula, ■wh.vAv itwrvte. Ha^g^os^a 

■ to be clouds of glowing gas. So a\\ ftiesa mn?*. V'a.Nc'xva.ii.-i. 

► common origia, and, therefore, the simpWon uw\«. ^e»-'^ ^■■a^«e^^ 







the school room globe along with sun, moon and stars, changed 
into a quantity of fiery gas. In the beginning — how many million 
years ago science cannot yet decide — was gas, is the dogma of 
Geology. But he dare not ask about the origin of the gas itself. 
Then the mesmerist requires him to suppose that all the fiery 
mass very conveniently began to cool, particularly a quantity in 
the centre, which also whirled about until it became the sun." 

** The victim of duplicity is next to suppose that other 
quantities also cooled until they changed into planets. Especially 
one quantity went on cooling until it very conveniently became the 
earthball with a rocky crust, and though on fire originally, yet a 
portion of it changed into all the oceans and seas. * In the study 
of science,' says Dr. Dick in his book on Geology, * one is per- 
mitted to suppose anything if he will but remember and 
acknowledge to others that he only makes suppositions ; will 
give reasons to show that his suppositions may be true, and be 
ready at any time to give up his suppositions when facts go 
against them. The last of these two suppositions, namely, the 
gradual cooling of the world from a state of intense heat, is often 
made by those who wish to form to themselves a notion of how 
the rocks and rivers, mountains and plains ofthe world have been 
brought to exist as they are.' p. lo. Can the foolish Geologists, 
instead of making these absurd suppositions, not believe the fact 
that God made the world as stated on God's own authority? Instead, 
however, of opening their eyes they further suppose that despite 
the cooling, as much fire remained inside the ball as heaved up 
the rocky crust into mountain chains, whilst the waters went on 
channelling and levelling so as to make all the river and ocean 
beds. Then the rivers would carry down to lakes and seas 
matter containing animal and vegetable remains to form sediment, 
which we must suppose hardened after millions of years into 
rocks, especially the stratified ones, the unstratified rock being 
supposed due to the original fire. All these atheistic supposi- 
tions are expressed in words of Greek origin so as to amaze the 
gaping simpleton. The rocks immediately above the unstratified 
are called metamorphic. Next in ascending order are the 
palaeozoic or primary, the mesozoic or secondary, the cainozoic 
including the tertiary and quaternary. The guesses about fossils 
make up Palaeontology. 

"Now, let it be observed that not one of these suppositions 
is even probable. Who ever saw gas changed into granite, or a 
fiery vapour into water, or a river channel its own bed ? Is there 
within the memory of mankind one considerable mountain more 
or less on the earth — notwithstanding volcanic eruptions and 
earthquakes — one considerable county more or less, or what 
continent has materially changed its shape ? What do fossils 
prove ? The following is a confession from Skertchly*s Geology, 
p. loi : — ' So imperfect is the record of the earth's history, as 
told in these rocks, that we can never hope to fill up completely 
all the gaps in the chain of life. The testimony of the rocks has 
been well compared to a history of which only a few imperfect 
vohunes remain to us, the missing portions of which we can only 
fill np by conjecture. What botanist but would despair of 
restoring the vegetation of wood and field from the dry leaves 
that Autumn scatters ? Yet from less than this the Geologist has 


to form all his ideas of past floras. Can we wonder then at 
the imperfection of the geological world ?' Indeed it is confessed 
that the age of a fossil is not determined by the degree of its 
petrification, but by the age of the rock in which it is imbedded ; 
and the age of the rock by its position among the strata. Have 
men in these last days become so silly that with old bones and 
stones, and foot-marks, they may be led to deny the very God 
that made them ? But was not this folly foretold ages ago by the 
inspired Hebrew prophets ? 

** Each layer of rocks is supposed by Geologists to have 
occupied an indefinite number of millions of years, and the age 
of the earth is still more a mystery to them. Professor Thomson, 
who is a scientific dictator, has, however, announced that the 
solidification of the earth could not have taken less than 
20,000,000 years, and not more than 400,000,000 years, and so 
that the date of the world's beginning is somewhere between 
these two numbers. Some time ago Geologists proved from 
scientific data (to their own entire satisfaction and that of their 
dupes), that the earth is a ball of liquid fire with a thin crust of 
rock, so that at a depth of 25 miles the rocks must melt, and at 
150 they would go off in vapour. (Dr. Dick's Natural History, 
p. 12). But Professor Thomson has found out that those supposi- 
tions do not square with the supposition of gravitation, and 
accordingly he supposes rather that the mass of the earth can" 
not be much less rigid than a globe of steel of the same size 
would be, yet that there must be some quantity of the fiery liquid 
left in the interior, enough at least to cause earthquakes and 
volcanic eruptions. What tinkering the imaginary globe of the 
astronomer needs ? 

" Some geologists, such as Jukes, are not certain whether 
the earth was a molten mass at first, and whether granite is of 
igneous or aqueous origin. Formerly rocks were classified as 
primary, transition, secondary, tertiary, recent, but now by a 
new arrangement the transitionary rocks are denied any place 
in the series. Jukes says that he holds * views with regard to 
the Devonian period which differ from those taken by most 
geologists, and that the question is hardly yet settled,' p. 203. 
Also, regarding the stratified rocks, he observes, ' that at one 
time it was thought that there was some essential disiinction in 
the nature of these rocks, and their mode of torniation. It is 
now known that the primary rocks when first formed were 
exactly like the corresponding secondary and tertiary,' p. 202. 
Indeed, is there anything certain about geology except that it is 
disguised atheism denying God the Creator ? 

*' Geologists profess to prove extinct species. Of course 
they can produce large bones to show that at one time there 
were large elephants and lizards, but are big dogs not dogs as 
really as little ones ? Is it a fact according to Moses, there were 
human giants before the flood, and that, since the lower animals 
have degenerated in size and age as well as men, need not 
surprise this nineteenth century of crime and infidelity. But 
the trick of comparative anatomy is to claim with an old bone 
the power ot reproducing the sketch of the entire animal, though 
formerly unknown. If the monkey had been unknown to Darwin 
and the scientists, would they have been able by setin^ Qtve 


hand only, to tell that that beast has four hands ? If zoologists 
think the serpents once had wings or feet, let them read Genesis 
iii. 14 — * On thy belly shalt thou go.* Let scientists ere con- 
cluding that any kind of animal has become extinct consider 
the words of Jukes himself: 'As all the truth about anything 
whatever is absolutely unattainable by us, it would only lead us 
astray if we required it from Geology, or reasoned as if we had 
attained it,' p. 202. But recently the existence of the gorilla 
became known. What of the leviathan, the swift serpent, the 
crooked serpent, the dragon that is in the sea, — Isa. xxvii. Is 
it not chiefly the fossilised bones of the sea serpent that 
geologists are exhibiting as the remains of extinct species of a 
vast size ? No wonder the present existence of the leviathan is 
so eagerly denied." 

S. Laing, in his " Modern Science and Modem Thought," 
page 27, informs us that 

" The total thickness of known strata is about 130,000 feet, 

or 25 miles of this, about 30,000 feet belong to the 

Laurentian, which is the oldest known stratified deposit, 18,000 
to the Cambrian, and 22,000 to the Silurian. These form 
together what is known as the Primary or Palaeozoic Epoch.'* 

Mr. Laing is very careful to omit the names of those who 
know strata for a depth of 25 miles. Can it be that he has 
been down there himself? If so, we may expect to have 
further revelations as to the contents of the bowels of the 
earth. But no, he cannot have been there, for he tells us a 
little further on (page 37) : 

" At this rate of increase water would boil at a depth of 
10,000 feet, and iron and all other metals be melted before we 
reached 100,000 feet." 

We are thus satisfied that the gifted author was not 
actually there, or he would have been melted in company with 
^^iron and all other metals'' This is a relief, and enables us 
to at once and for ever dispose of his wild theories as baseless 
assumptions. In a certain case before the Magistrate, the 
culprit hardly likttd to say that the witness against him was 
telling a He, so he mildly said that the witness was 
** handling the truth very carelessly.*' When Mr. Laing has 
the impertinence to tell us what lies below the surface of the 
earth for a depth of 25 miles we are bound to say that he 
handles the truth in a careless and most reprehensible 

With the usual unqualified manner for which scientists 
have become famous, Mr. Laing goes on to say : 

"Keasoning from lhe?.p. Jacts^ k'$>^\i^\Vj^<oi tiie rate of 
change in the forms of life to Viav^ b<i^ii\^x^ ?^^\»a lQ>ra\fexV>j . . . ^ 


. . Lyell has arrived at the conclusion that Geology requires a 
period of not less than 200,000,000 of years to account for the 
phenomena which it discloses." 

To reason from facts and then to assume something 
which in its very essence is utterly incapable of proof, is bad 
enough ; but to mis-call fictions facts and then to add on to 
them whatever assumption is necessary to maintain the 
result in keeping with the theory with which the start was 
made, is so atrocious that we are again forced to the con- 
clusion that Geologists are lost in the fogs of their own 
creation, and cannot find their way through the millions of 
ages of their own imagination, to anything having the 
remotest bit of truth in it. Once more, and I have done with 
Mr. Laing and his Geology. He informs us in the work 
already referred to that : 

"The law of gravity, which IS THE FOUNDATION OF 
GEOLOGICAL ACTION has certainly prevailed, as will be 
shown later, through the enormous periods of geological time 
and far beyond this WE CAN DISCERN IT OPERATING 
in those astronomical changes by which cosmic matter has been 
condensed into nebulas, nebulae into suns throwing off planets, 
and planets throwing off satellites, as they cooled and con- 

The laws of geological action being based on a myth — the 
law of gravitation, Geology itself may be " thrown off into 
space *' without any ill effects being felt anywhere. 

GEOLOGY and ASTRONOMY as at present taught by 
the schoolmen are nothing more than fables. 

Hear what The Future of February, 1892, says: 

** Astronomers are very fond of boasting of the wonderful 
exactness of their science, and that it is based on the principles 
of incontrovertible mathematics ; and of ridiculing astrology as 
a ^s^Mffa-science. The exactness belongs to practical and not to 
theoretical astronomy. For example, when the writer learnt 
the principles of astronomy at school, he was taught that the 
Sun was exactly 95 millions of miles from the earth ; now-a-days 
astronomers say that this was an error, and that the Sun is only 
92 millions of miles distant. Newton made the Sun's distance 
to be 28 millions of miles, Kepler made it 12 millions, Martin 81, 
and Mayer 104 millions I Dr. Woodhouse, who was professor 
of astronomy at Cambridge about fifty years ago, was so candid 
as to admit the weakness of the Newtonian speculations. 
Woodhouse wrote : * However perfect our theory, and however 
simply and satisfactorily the Newtonian hypothesis may seem 
to us to account for all the celestial phenomena, yet we are here 
compelled to admit the astounding truth that If o\it "^T^xcvSsR.%\i^ 
disputed and our facts challenged, the v;Yio\^ t^\i^^ v^l ^^Nxorckaxo^i 
does not contain the proofs of its ov/u accwiaLC^' ? '" 


According to tables of curvature compiled to suit the 
mathematical factors and tentative formulas employed in the 
imaginary geodetic operations, which have from time to time 
been conducted in observatories, the horizon of an observer 
is distant or near according to the greatness or otherwise of 
his elevation above the surface of the supposed globe. If 
he stands 24 feet above sea level, he is said to be in the centre 
of a circle which bounds his vision, the radius of which in 
any direction, on a clear day, is six miles. 

A local gentleman tells me that he has watched a boat- 
race in New Zealand, seeing the boats all the way out and 
home, the distance being 9 miles from where he was standing 
on the beach. I have seen the hull of a steamer with the 
naked eye at an elevation of not more than 24 feet, at a 
distance of 12 miles, and in taking observations along the 
South African coast, have sometimes had an horizon of at 
least 20 miles at an elevation of 20 feet only. The distance 
of the horizon, or vanishing point, where the sky appears to 
touch the earth and sea, is determined, largely by the 
weather, and when that is clear, by the power of our vision. 
This is proved by the fact that the telescope will increase^ the 
distance of the horizon very greatly, and bring objects into 
view which are entirely beyond the range of vision of the 
unaided eye. But, as no telescope can pierce a segment of 
water, the legitimate conclusion we are forced to arrive at, is 
that the surface of water is level, and that, therefore, the 
shape of the world cannot be globular, and on such a flat or 
level surface, the greater the elevation of the observer, the 
longer will his range of vision be, and thus the farther he can 


Advocates of the globular form of the world often fall back 
on themeaningof the term *^level," afiirmingthat a level surface 
means an even surface and not a horizontal or flat one. That 
is to say that a convex surface if free from irregularities is 
even or level. In ** Nuttall's Standard Dictionary," 1892 
Edition, page 409, the following is the definition of level — 
*' Horizontal, even, flat, on the same line of plane." This 


shows that level is the same as horizontal or flat, and could 
not possibly apply to a convex surface. In the " Cruise of 
the Falcon" by E. F. Knight, the following occurs on page 
2 of volume 2 : 

n the way, the rails being carried i 
;ross the level plains." 

one perfectly straiKbt line ai 
Level here means flat or Horizontal, as the plains in 
South America are known to be for thousands of square 

Robinson's New Navigation and Surveying," page 25, 

says : 


" The spirit level, which is usually o 
Surveyor's transit instniment, is used lo determine a horizonta 
line. A horizontal line is at right angles lo a vertical. It is i 
level line." 

:The following is fi"om the same work, page 33 : 

" To adjust a theodolite, measure very carefully the distance J 
between two stations, and set the instrument half way betweeo^ 
them. Now bring the level near to one of the stations, level VSm 
carefully and sight the rod. Note the number on the rod, ^xf-M 
six feet, and have the rod man go to the other station and plac«1 
bis target on the rod just six feet. When the telescope is tiime(}j| 
upon it the hori/ontai spidet line ought to just coincide with tha ■ 
target, and will, if the instrument is level or in perfect adjust- f 

From the foregoing it is very clear that level means i 
hoj-izontal and cannot mean convex. 

G. F. Chambers, in his "Story of the Solar System," I 
pages 84 and 85, quotes Sir H. Holland as seeing the eclipsed 1 
moon with the sun above the horizon. I quote the following j 
from Mr. Chambers : 

" This spectacle requires, however, a combination of circum- 
stances rarely occurring — a perfectly clear eastern and western I 
horizon, and an entirely level intervening surface such as that of \ 
the sea or the African desert." 

In a lunar eclipse such as described, the sun is distant 1 
from the moon half a circle, or 180'', both luminaries being 
go°froni the observer, so that on a convex surface it would 
be impossible to see both bodies at the same time, but quite 
possible from a level or horizontal surface, which actually 
was the case. To see about 6,000 miles to the sun on the 
one side and about 6,000 miles to the moon on the other side, 
one would require to be projected 4,000 miles into space 
above the horizon of the globe in order \.o o^e'scQ'K^fe 'Cr^ 
ivexity in the distance. Thus, \eve\, vje ^. vt a,%M.TtaSi^«tg^v' 


means horizontal or flat, or on the same line of plane, as the 
dictionary informs us. " In the " Voyage of a Naturalist," 
by C. Darwin, page 328, the following is stated : 

** I was reminded of the Pampas of Buenos Ayres by seeing 
the disc of the rising sun intersected by an horizon level as that 
of the ocean." 

The surface here referred to was a flat one, and such are 
called Llanos or level fields in South America. Level, there- 
fore, signifies flat or horizontal. 


The distance at which lights can be seen at sea entirely 
disposes of the idea that we are living on a huge ball. 

From a tract, "The Bible verstis Science^" by J. C. 
Akester, Hull, I extract the following : 

*• A lighthouse on the Isle of Wight, 180 feet high (St. 
Catherine's), has recently been fitted with an electric light of 
such penetrating power (7,000,000 candles) that it can be seen 
42 miles. At that distance, according to modern science, the 
vessel would be 996 feet below the horizon." 

Extract from a letter written by a passenger on hoard the 
** Iberia f'' Orient Line, R. M.S. — "At noon on Thursday, 27th of 
September, we were 169 miles from Port Said ; by the ship's log, 
our rate of steaming was 324 miles in 24 hours. At 12 p.m., we 
were alongside the lighthouse at Port Said, it having become 
visible at 7.30 when it was about 58 miles away. It is an ordinary 
tower, about as high as the tower at Springhead (60 feet), lit by 
electricity." According to modern science, the vessel would be 
2,182 feet below the horizon. 

Extract from ''Manx Sun,'' July 24th, /5P4.— "The weather 
of late has been very fine. It was a splendid sight, on Sunday 
evening, to see the land in Ayr, and Cumberland, so clear that 
houses could be seen with the naked eye ; and the smoke from 
Whitehaven, and other towi s, could be seen very distinctly. 
Ramsey Bay appeared as if it was enclosed by the surrounding 
laud, from Black Coombe to the Point of Ayr, Welney light 
being seen distinctly, distance 45 miles." 

In February, 1894, a discussion on the subject of the 
shape of the world was carried on in the columns of the Cape 
Argus (Capetown), by the writer on the one side, and three 
antagonists on the other. From the evidence of theeditoq^ 
the paper in a foot-note to the first letter of "Ancient 
Mariner " that Dassen Island \ig\vt Vvad beetv s»een fiiom the 
^ach road at Sea Point, it y^^% §\vev^Tv X\vaX ^a^x^ \s. \^n^. 


This light is 155 feet above sea level at its focal plane, and 
acf^ording to the published report of the Inspector of Public 
Works for 1893, had been seen from the bridge of a mail 
steamer more than 40 miles away. This " ancient mariner " 
did not believe, and asked " if anything had gone wrong with 
the shape of the earth hereabouts." One of his supporters, 
in a letter to the paper — after the editor had stated that the 
light had been seen from the beach road at Sea Point (33 
miles) — stated that by climbing a hill so many feet the light 
might be seen ! Thus will ignorant prejudice flaunt itselt in 
the face of truth. If the earth were a globe it is evident that 
Dassen Island light could not be seen from a steamer's 
bridge 40 miles away, nor from an elevation of 30 feet at a 
distance of 33 miles. In the former case, allowing 40 feet 
for altitude of observer, the light would be 871 feet below the 
horizon, and in the latter jgi feet below. At the close ofthe 
controversy, I challenged "Ancient Mariner" to test the case 
by an appeal to an experiment on the waters of Table Bay, 
and am still waiting an acceptance of that challenge. I am 
now credibly informed that the Bluff light, Natal, has been 
seen at sea from a distance of 30 miles. This light is 282 
feet above sea level, and should, according to the globe 
theory, have been 2g8 feet below the horizon, allowing zo 
feet for height of observer ! 

Another and an unconscious witness to the fact of the 
horizoniality of water, is Mr. Smith, of Cape Point, as the 
following shows : 

To THE Editor of THt "Cape Times." 

Sir, — At nine o'clock this evening the Danger Point light 
was distinctly visible to the naked eye from the homestead at 
Cape Point (about 150 feet above sea level), this being the first 
occasion, since the erection of the Danger Point Lighthouse, on 
which the flashes of light tiave been noticed by myself. The 
light must be most powerful to be seen from a distance of over 
fifty miles on a clear night. I timed half a minute interval 
between each three quick flashes. I am, 4c., 

Cape Point, August 2and, 1694. A. E. SMITH. 

In a letter from the Engineer of Public Works, dated 
Capetown, 2nd February, 1898, I am informed that r 

"The focal plane of I'oint Danger Lighthouse is elevated 
* • 150 feet above high water level." 

According to this, therefore, if the vjOT\.4\ie ^ ■^^iofe, tYve 
Sfi^/ s4ffu4^ lia&e hen 1,666 feet below Mr. SmitK^ line oj sigVit. 



In Answers of znd May, 1896, the following appears : 

" The steeple, or stump, as it is locally called, of the Parish 
Church of St. Botnlph, at Boston, on the soiitb-eaat coast of 
Lincolnshire, near the Wash, has long been utilised as a light- 
hoiisc. The tower is 290 feet in height, and resembles that of 
Antwerp Cathedra], being crowned by a beautiful octagonal 
serves as a hghlhouse la guide mariners when entering what are 
called the Boston and Lynn Deeps." 

Arcording to globular principles this Hght should be 
hidden below the horizon for nearly 800 feet. 

From " Music and Morals," by H. R, Haweiss, I extract 
the following : 

" The Antwerp spire is 403 feet high from the foot of the 
tower; Strasimrg measures 468 feet from the level of the sea, 
but leas than 403 teet from the level of the plain. By the clear 
morning light, from the steeple at Notre Dame at Antwerp, the 
panorama can hardly be surpassed; 126 steeples may be counted, 
tar and near. Facing northward the Scheldt winds away until 
it loses itself in a white line, which is none other than the North 
Sea. By the aid of a telescope ships can be distinguished out 
on the horizon, and the captains declare they can see the lofty 
spire at ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY MILES distant; 
Middelburg at 75 miles, Fleesing 65 miles, are also visible from 
the steeple ; looking towards Holland, we can distinguish Breda 
and Wailadue, each about 54 miles off." 

The above spire would be out of sight A MILE BELOW 
THE HORIZOi^J, at a distance of 150 mites, and as no 
telescope can piece a segment of water, the conclusion is 
that water is level. 

The Earth Review of July, 1 894, says ; 

"The Captain of the s.s, A/i/o, referring to the question as 
to how far a powerful light can be seen, says : ' The other day, 
when oiT Skagen, the rays from Hantsholmen lighthouse were 
distinctly visible, though the light was fully seventy-two miles 

" Mr. B. wrote and asked how the light could be seen unless 
the lighthouse was 3.500 feet above sea-level ? This is the 
official reply he received. 

" Editorial Department, Tit-Bits, 
" Dec. 21, 1892. 
" The paragraph you refer to was sent me by the Captain of 
the s.s. Mi/o. and he vouched for its accuracy. Under these 
circumstances I cannot enter into a discussion as to the possT 
bility of his being able to see it or not, P.S.— Mr. B, alkiwed 
that the reported observation was made from a mast-he^ 
;oo |eet above sea-level. ' ' * 

and 271 


In the Argus Annual tor 1894, it is stated, on pages lo'J 


According to globe measurement it should have b( 
about 300 feet below the tine of sight. 

The Natal Mercury of i8th July, 1898, states ; 

" The Cape L'Agiiihas lighthouse is to be reconstructed to 
allow of the introduction of a flash light. A lighthotise erected 
two miles from Fish River, has been completed. The tower is 
33 feet high and 238 feet above sea lei'el, and (Ac fiaik light is 
visible for over 50 miles." 

This light would be 1,400 feet below an obseiTer's li 
I of sight at an elevation of 28 feet, if the world is a globe. 
I The following is extracted from Scraps of 27th August, 1898 


1 to 


" I have recently received (he 
confess, fogs me just about as much a 
of being fogged ; 

"■ Sir, — la your issue No. 772 you give an account of the 
lighthouse af New Yurk — "Liberly enlightening the World." 
Vou say the light can be seen sixty miles away at sea, alld I 
think you must be mistaken. A text-book I have by me on 
surveying and levelling gives eight inches per mile (actually 
7-963 inchesl as the correction to be made for curvature ol the 
earth's sarface in setting out canals, railways, &c., varying 
inversely with the square of the distance, thus; 60 k 60 x 
8 -i- 13 = 2,400 feet, and making allowance for the light being 
336 feet above sea level, it should be 2,074 ^^^^ below the horizon 
at sixty miles.' 

"' Now (i) either your figures are wrong, or (i) the weight 
of the statue has flattened the earth for sixty miles round about, 
or (3) surveyors do not allow eight inches for curvature, and let 
tlicir cauals and railways stick out over the side of Ihc earth 
like gigantic iishing-rods. I confess I am in a fog. fan you 
enlighten me in your "Facts and Fancies" column? — Youri 
truly, ■ FoGGv." 

" I won't attempt to analyze " Foggy's " fogging calculations, 
but he is certainly very wrong. Any navigator will tell you that 
file horixoD is visible at about fifteen miles froui the hurricane 
dech of a steamer ; at twenty from the bridge deck i and at a 
proportionately greater distance from the masthead. But heyond 
Ibis you have to remember the added penetration given to 
lighthouse lights by meaus of refraction and reflection." 

A light can only be seen on the surface of a globe, at a 
distance the square of which multiplied by 8" (nearly) is 
equal to its height. This applies no matter hf*— '"erftUj 
the light may be, because no light can pier* 
water, nor can the natural eye with or wi 

I do so. 


But, says someone, there is no allowance made for re- 
fraction in any of the foregoing calculations. That is quite 
true, but constitutes no valid objection in the light of the 
following extract from the " Encyclopaedia Britannica," 
article ** Levelling " : 

*' We suppose the visual ravs to be a straight line^ whereas 
on account of the unequal densities of the air at different 
distances from the earth, the rays of light are incurvated by 
'. refraction. The effect of this is to lessen the difference between 
the true and apparent levels, but in such an extremely variable 
and uncertain manner that if any constant or fixed allowance is 
made for it in formula or tables, it will often lead to a greater 
error than what it was intended to obviate. For, though the 
refraction may at a mean compensate for about one-seventh of 
the curvature ot the earth, it sometimes exceeds one-fifth, and 
at other times does not amount to one-fifteenth. We have, 
therefore, made no allowonce for refraction in the foregoing 

We are fairly entitled to conclude, therefore, from the 
reliable data furnished as to how far lights at sea can be 
seen, that the world is an extended plane, and not the globe 
of astronomical speculation. 


M. Paul B. du Chaillu, published, a few years ago, a 
work entitled " The Land of the Midnight Sun," of which the 
, following are extracts : 

" The sun at midnight is always north of the observer, on 
account of the position of the earth. It seems to traveI' 
AROUND IN A CIRCLE, requiring twenty-four hours for its com- 
pletion, it being noon when it reaches the greatest elevation, an^- 
midnight at the lowest. Its ascent and descent are so impef ^ 
ceptible at the pole, and the variations so slight, that it sink^ 
south very slowly, and its disappearance below the horizon l^ 
almost immediately followed by its re-appearance." 

" We have here spoken as if the observer were on a lev^^ 
with the horizon ; but should he climb a mountain, the sun 
course will appear higher ; and should he, instead of travellin 
fifteen miles north, climb about 220 feet above the sea level eac! 
day, he would see it the same as if he had gone north ; cons 
sequently if he stood at the arctic circle at that elevation, anc^ 
had an unobstructed view of the horizon, he would see the su^ 
one day sooner. Hence tourists from Haparanda prefer goin^ 
to Avasaxa, a hill 680 feet above the sea, from which, though 
eight or ten miles south of the ateWc c\tc\^, V\\^^ ^^sv ^i^e th^ 
midnight sun for three days," 


T voyage drew to a close, and we approached the 
upper end of the Gulf of Bothnia the twilight had disappeared, 
and between the setting and rising of the sun hardly one horn- 

" Haparanda is in 65° 51' N. lal., and forty-one miles south 
of the arctic circle. It is j° 18' farther north than Archangel, 
and in the same latitude as the most northero part of Iceland. 
The sun rises on the 21st of June at 12.01 a.m., and sets at 
M.37 p.m. From the 22nd to the 25th of June the traveller may 
enjoy the sight of the midnight sun from Avasaxa, a hill six 
hundred and eighty feet high, and about forty-five miles distant, 
on the other side of the stream ; and should he be a few days 
later, by driving north on the high road he may still have the 
opportunity of seeing it." 

If the earth be a globe, at midnight the eye would have 
to penetrate thousands of miles of land and water even at 65*^ 
North latitude, in order to see the sun at midnight, That 
the sun can be seen for days together in the Far North 
during the Northern summer, proves that there is something 
very seriously wrong with the globular hypothesis. Besides 
this, how is it that the midnight sun is never seen in the 
south during the southern summer? Cook penetrated as 
far South as 71°, Weddell in i8gj reached as far as 74°, 
and Sir James C- Ross in 1841 and 1842 reached the 78th 
parallel, but I am not aware that any of these navigators 
have left it on record that the sun was seen at midgnight in 
the south. 

Captain Woodside of the American barkentine Ec/io, at 
Capetown on z6th June, 1 898, reports that he had been a good 
deal in the great southern ocean, and often when in latitude 
62° south he has had a kind of daylight all niglit, but not 
sufficient to read by ; but the midnight sun was never seen. 

Since writing the foregoing I have received from the 
Secretary of the Royal Belgian Geographical Society a 

In this paper it is stated by Lieut, de Gerlache, the 
Commander of the expedition, that 

he Hiin set, and was not seen above our 
■A Jlily." 

I This was during the severest part of the winter at latitude 

71° 36' south. 

On pages 9 and 10 of the same pamphlet it is stated 
I that the ship quitted her winter quarters on the 14th 

February. She had thus been a winter and a summer in the 
L ice at that latitude. During the winter, the extraordinary 
^^^^ffiomenon of total darkness caused b^ ttie Vo\a.V^\^%.'>^'^^'ax?— 


ance of the sun for two months is duly recorded, and had 
the sun been seen at midnight in the summer, it is only 
natural and reasonable that such another extraordinary 
phenomenon should have been chronicled ; but there is not 
one word in the pamphlet about the matter. We conclude, 
therefore, that there is no midnight sun in the south. The 
midnight sun can be seen in the north during the summer 
at 66° of latitude, and if there be the same extraordinary 
phenomenon in the south, it must have been seen at the 
latitude the ** Belgica *' reached much sooner and longer 
than it is in the north at latitude 66. 


In *' The Story of the Heavens,'* by Sir R. Ball, the 
following accounts of the motions of the earth-globe are 
given, page 3 : 

'• It became certain that whatever were the shape of the 
earth, it was at all events something detached from all other 
bodies and poised without visible support IN SPACE.*' 

Pags 6 : 

•' Ptolemy saw how this mighty globe was poised in what he 
believed to be the centre of the universe." 

Page 7 : 

'* Copernicus PROVED that the appearances presented in 
the daily rising and setting of the sun and stars could be accounted 
for by the SUPPOSITION that the earth rotated." 

'• Th** second great principle which has conferred immortal 
glory on Copernicus, assigned to the earth its true position in 
the universe. Copernicus transferred the centre to the sun, and 
he established the somewhat humiliating truth that our earth is 
merely a planet." 

Page 87 : 

*' The discovery that our earth must be a globe isolated in 

Page 517: 

" Wc know that the earth rotates on its axis once every day." 

After all this unsound speculation, of which we know 
every line to be false, it is somewhat amusing to listen to 
another ** Professor *' of equal authority with the Astronomer 
Royal of Ireland* 

Professor J. Norman Lockyer, in his " Astronomy," 

section IV., 

" Vou have to lake it as proved that the earth moves. Dajr' 
and night are the 6m( proofs that the earth does really spin. 
Without this spinning there could be no day and nigbt, so that 
the regular succession of day and night is caused by this 
spinuing. Hence the appearances connected with the rising 
and setting of the sun may be due, either to our earth lieiag AT 
REST and the sun and stars travelling round it, ni the earth (ise^J 
turning roiiml, while the sun and slars are at rest." 

" Our earth " seems to give more trouble to 
astronomers " than all the heavenly bodies put together. U;M 
as Professor Lockyer says, EITHER THE EARTH IS AT'f 
REST and the stars moving, or i/ie siars at rest and the earth 
moving, how is it that the wise men of the observatories 
Jiave never once attempted to ascertain data to prove 
whether it is the earth or the itars that move ? How is it 
that they are content to go on year after year, labouring 
under what is at best but a supposition that the earth moves, 
FOR either by the earth being at rest, and the sun and 
stars moving, or the sun and stars being at rest and thcr'f 
earth moving .' 

In "Wonders of the Sun, Moon, and Stars," by '. 
Russell, it is stated that : 

" The speed of the surface of the earth, in performing ItK 
rotations, is 1,526 feet per second. Great as that speed is, it tfj 
alow when compared to the earth's progress in its orbit, which isf 
at the rate of 18 miles per second, or more than 65,000 li 

Then, in "The Story of the Heavens," page 429, 
are informed by Sir R. Ball, that ; 

" Every half hour we are abou' 

constellation of Lyra th' 

travel at the present rate for more 
have crossed the abyss between c 
frontiers of Lyra." 

sun and his syater 

an a million years before we 

r present position and the 

•' Sun, Mooi 

and ^ars," by A. Giberne, states that : 

he earth that moves, and not the sun j it is 

From these extracts the reader is given tr 
by those who have made astronomy their life sti 
herefore, oa^/j/to know, that IN ON'" **~ 


**The earth rotates over 1.000 miles, revolves around the 
sun, ovtsr 05.cxx^ miles, and rushes through ^lace towards the 
constellation L>Ta, a. dis^aiii>e x 2a.oiDc miles." 

The total rate of rotarion, revolution and gyration, 
amounting' to no less than Sccoc- miles an hour. 

This casts a total eclipse over all that Jules Verne ever 
viTOte. Put together all the imaginary' exploits in the air 
specially wrinen to interest the A-oung, add to this all the 
wonderful adventures of air-ships recorded in the ** Daughter 
of the Revolution,** and tack ^.^n :o thi> all the wild and 
impossible things found in "current libraries of fiction," and 
I venture to say that the grand total will record nothing so 
utterly impossible or so supremely ridiculous as this modem 
scientific delusion of a globe spinning away in space in 
several different directions at the same time, at rates of 
speed which no man is able to grasp ; with the* inhabitants, 
some hanging heads down and others at various angles to 
suit the inclination. 

Write down all the ST**indles that ever were perpetrated ; 
name all the hoaxes vou ever heard of or read about : include 
all the imjwstures and bubbles ever exposed; make a list 
of all the snares that popular credulity- could ever be exposed 
to, and you will fail in getting \*4thin sight or hearing of an 
imposture so gross, a hoax so ingenious, or a bubble of such 
gigantic projwrtions as has bt;^n perpetrated and forced 
upon unthinking multitudes in the name of science, and as 
proved incontrovertible fact, by the expounders of modem 

Again and again have their theories been combated and 
exposed, but as often have the majority, who do not think 
for themselves, accepted the popular thing. No less an 
authority in his time than the celebrated Danish astronomer, 
Tycho Brahe, argued that if the earth revolves in an orbit 
round the sun, the change in the relative position of the 
stars thus necessarily occasioned, could not fail to be noticed. 
In the " History of the Conflict between Religion and 
Science," by Dr. Draper, pages 175 and 176, the matter is 
referred to m the following words : 

" Among the arguments b- ought^forward against the Coper- 
nican system at the time of its promulgation, was one by the 
great Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, originally urged by 
Aristarchus against the Pythagorean system, to the efifect that. 
If, as was alleged, the earth moves round the srm, there ought to 
he a chanf^e in the relative position of the stars ; they should seem to 
Bff pirate oa we approach them, or lo cVose together as we recede 
""o/w them, At that time XYie svxa'^ ^Vaxv^ifc h<^^ ^^^V5l^ 


T-eBtimated. Had it been known, as it tt . _ _.__ 

diBtance exceeds 90 million miles, or that the diameter of the 
orbit is more tlian 180 million, that argnmeni would doubtless have 
had very ^reat iveight. In reply to Tycho, it was said that, since 
the parallax of a body diminishes as its distance increases, a 
star may be so far off that its parallax mav be imperceptible. 

To the uninitiated, the words " this answer proved to be 
correct," might seem to settle the matter, and while it must 
be admitted that parallax is diminished or increased 
according as the star is distant or near, parallax and directum 
are very different terms and convey quite different meanings. 
Tycho stated that the direction of the stars would be altered ; 
his critics replied that the distance gave no sensible difference 
oi parallax. This maybe set down as ingenious, but it is no 
answer to the proposition, which has remained unanswered 
to this hour, and is unanswerable. 

If the earth is at a given point in space on say January 
ist, and according to present-day science, at a distance of 
I go, 000,000 miles from that point six months afterwards, it 
follows that the relative position and direction of the stars will 
have greatly changed, however small the angle of parallax 
inconti stably proves that the earth is at rest — that it does not 
" move in an orbit round the sun." 

That the earth does not " rotate on its axis " is proved 
by the fact that no observer on the surface of a globe could 
see half way round it, or for a distance of thousands of miles 
on either side of him, as he would require to do in order to 
see round a circle of 180°, to view the setting sun and the 
rising moon at one time. ^^ 

Sir Henry Holland, in his " Recollections of Past Life,"^^| 
says that : ^^H 

■' On 20th April, 1837. the moon rose eclipsed before the sun ^^ 
had set." I 

Now, on a globe of 25,000 statute miles equatorial 
circumference one has to be 24 feet above sea level to get a ^^ 
horizon of six miles, the " curvature" being 8" to the mile^H 
and varying inversely with the square of the distance. ^H 

We are thus taught to believe that what appears at all^| 
times of the day to be half a circle, or about 180°, is in 
reality only a few miles, as the earth rotates against the sun 
lind thus deceives us. But the p\\et\omeuo-n. cS. ^ Vi.-^\-ax 
^IgEu^ requires, according to astronora\ca.\ iocUme, -Cft-W. "^^^J 

K :1 



(ttrth shall be exactly midway between sun and moon, to 
shut off the light of the sun and thus to darken the moon. 
These two " bodies " being then, according to the astronomer, 
opposite each other and the earth between, must each be 
go°, or a quarter of a circle distant from an observer on the 
earth's surface — that is, half a circle from one to the other. 
So that what astronomy, on the one hand, teaches is only a 
few miles distant, the horizon, is thus seen to be, according 
to its own showing, half a circle, for the sun is at one side 
of one quadrant, and the moon at the other side of another. 
If, therefore, the observer be on the equator when the 
phenomenon occurs, he can see, according to astronomical 
measurement, over 6,000 miles on either side of him, east 
and west. If in north or south latitude, he would see 
correspondingly less, but thousands of miles in every case. 
But, on the other hand, according to the popular theory, he 
would have to be hoisted 4,000 miles away in space for such 
a thing to be possible. The fact of lunar eclipses having 
been observed when sun and moon were both above the 
horizon at the time of the eclipse, and thus that the observer 
pierced, with the unaided eye, a distance of thousands of 
miles on either side of him — about half a circle — proves that 
the earth does not rotate, and that it is not the globe of 
popular belief. 

^Sir Henry Holland further informs us that : 
" This spectacle requires, however, a combination of circum- 
stances rarely occumog — a perfectly clear eastern and western 
horizon, and an entirety level intervening surface, such as that oj 
the sea, or the African desert." 

defies all astronomical attempts to make it convex, and 
proves beyond the possibility of a doubt that the earth is an 
extended plane and not a globe. 

Furthermore, if the earth-globe rotates on its axis at 
the terrific rate of 1,000 miles an hour, such an immense 
mass would of necessity cause a tremendous rush of wnnd 
in the space it occupied. The wind would go all one way, 
and anything like clouds which got " within the sphere of 
influence" of the rotating sphere, would have to go the same 
way. The fact that the earth is at rest is proved by kite 
flying. The following from the " American Exporter " of 
November, 1897, illustrates this: 

" fiecently, a very intei:eatin& experiment was made in high 

kite flying at Boston, from ttie B\ae ft\\\ Cfe^tsa.\.orj,-«t£a the 

^ highest altitude ever reached bj a. V.v\e -was q>Ato\sA., 


kite reached a height of 10,016 feel above sea level, or 8,386 feet 

atmve the summit of the hill At the highest point 

reached the temperature was 38°, while at the ground it was 

63°. Above 5,000 feet the wind was from the west, while 

at the ground there was a southerly wind," 

Astronomers are not agreed about the " depth " of the ] 
earth's atmosphere, but the lowest estimate is 45 miles, i 
Therefore, everything- within the atmosphere would be 
subject to the gale of wind produced by the mad whirligig 
of the rotating globe. When, however, we know that " above 
5,000 feet the wind was from the west, while at the ground 
there was a southerly wind," the fact of the earth being at 
rest again dawns on us. How could there be two different 
directions of the wind at a distance of only 5,000 feet apart, 
if globular hypotheses are anywhere near the truth r Spin 
a top and it will be seen that the rotation of the top causes 
the air within its sphere of rotation to go all one way. 

Let " imagination " picture to the mind what force air 
would have which was set in motion by a spherical body 
of 8,000 miles diameter, which in one hour was spinning 
round 1,000 miles, rushing through space 65,000 miles, and 
gyrating across the heavens 20,000 miles ■ Then let " con- 
jecture " endeavour to discover whether the inhabitants on 
such a globe could keep their hair on r Talk about Jules 
Verne, he is not in it with the expounders of this " most 
exact of all the sciences." ■ 

A. E. Skellam says : I 

" The following experiment has been tried many times. an"d 
the reasonable deductions from it are entirely against any theory 
of motion : A loaded cannon was set vertical by plumb-iine and 
spirit-level and hred. The average time the ball was in the air 
was zK seconds, On several occasions the ball retnrned to the 
mouth of the cannon, and never fell more than 2 feet from its 
base, as shown in Fig. t (figures omitted). Now, let us see what 
the result would be if the earth were a rapidly rotating sphere. 
The ball would partake of two moiions, the one from the cannon, 
vertical, and the other from the earth, from west to cast, and 
would arrive at B, Fig. 2 ; while it had been ascending, the earth, 
with the cannon, would have gone on to C, In descending it 
would have no Impulse from the earth's motion or from the 
cannon, and would fall in a straight hue at C. but during the 
time it were falling, the earth, with the cannon, would have 
travelled on to D, and the ball would fall ullowing the world's 
rotation to be 6ou miles per hour in England) more than twa<| 
miles behind the cannon." 


According to current science the moon was once a piece 
of molten rock fractured off from the earth, when the earth 
was in a soft or plastic condition. Its origin is thus stated 
by Sir R. Ball, in the " Story of the Heavens," page 520 : 

" There is the gravest reason to believe that the moon was 
at some ver>' early period, fractured off from the earth, when the 

earth was in a soft or plastic condition At this epoch 

the earth rotated 29 times on its axis, while the moon completed 

one circuit but whether it (the epoch) is to be reckoned 

in hundreds of thousands of years, in millions of years, or in 
tens of millions of years, must be left in great degree to conjecture,^' 

Conjecture, in this case, has to choose between hundreds 
of thousands and tens of millions of years. Ample scope 
one must admit! In the same volume, page 52, the insig- 
nificant size of the moon as compared to the stars is set 
forth : 

" Every one of the thousands of stars that can be seen with 
the unaided eye, is enormously larger than our satellite.'* 

In •* Wonders of the Sun, Moon, and Stars," the same 
idea is announced thus : 

*' The luminary which appears to us next in importance to 
the sun is the moon, and for practical purposes, it, of course, is 
so ; but, considered from a broad astronomical point of view, 
the moon is exceedingly insignificant ^ being the smallest of all the 
luminaries visible to us with the naked eye. The diameter of the 
moon is only 2,160 miles." 

The moon is said to be a reflector of the sun's light, 
and to have no light of her own, as the following shows. 
Sir R. Ball, in his " Story of the Heavens," pages 50 and 
56, says : 

*' The brilliancy of the moon arises solely from the light of 
the sun which falls on the not self-luminous substance of the 



The sunlight will thus pass over the earth to the moon, 
and the moon will be illuminated." 

The speculation regarding the origin of the "lesser 

light that rules the night'* is in keeping with the other 

impossible notion concerning the earth being shot off from 

the sun hi remote ages. It is so purely nonsensical that it 

^ay well be relegated to oblivion without iutxYv^t ^^o. 


As to size, the moon is next in importance to the i 
if, indeed, she is not quite as larpe; and many times larger 
than any star in the heavens, including al] the planets ever 
seen by the eye of man. 

Both the distance and size of most of the objects in the 
heavens may be measured with a high degree of accuracy. 
It only requires to be known that the object is vertical to a 
certain part of the world at a certain time, when the observer 
must take a position — which could be ascertained by previous 
experiment— where the angular distance of the object is 
45°. A base line measured from that position to the point 
at which the object was vertical at the moment of 
observation, will be the same length as the distance of the 
object from the earth's surface. 

Size, except in the case of very small stars, may be as 
easily determined. Let the instrument with which the 
angular distance was taken be graduated to degrees, minutes 
and seconds, the minutes and seconds corresponding to miles , 
and sixtieths of miles on the earth's surface. 1 

Having carefully adjusted the instrument, bring the | 
image of the lower Hmb of the object to be measured down i 
to the horizon, and note the reading on the instrument. 
Now bring the upper limb in contact with the horizon, and 
the difference of the reading will be the diameter of the 
object. It would, of, require a very finely adjusted 
instrument, and one graduated to say the one hundredth 
part of a second to measure some of the smaller stars. 

Instead of the diameter of the moon being z,i6o miles, 
as we are informed by the men of science of to-day, it is, by i 
the above process, tcund to be about ^z nautical miles in 

Then as to the moon being a non-luminous body, and 
receiving alt its light from the sun, astronomy is as 
hopelessly wrong as in most other of its fanciful statements. 

If the reader has taken notice of reflectors, he will. have 
seen that they are either flat — -where angles are involved — 
or con:;ave, but never convex. A convex surface cannot 
concentrate and reflect light. But a concave surface does 
this, hence all reflectors, where angles are not involved, are 
concave. The moon is a globe. It is convex, and therefore' i 
cannot reflect light to any extent. ' 

Then, if the moon could reflect the light, it would also 
reflect the heat of the sun. But we know that moonlight is 
cold instead of warm. In Noad's " Lecxuve'^ oiACV^waw.f^V 
■ said ! 

" The light of the moon, though concentrated t^T 

powerful burning glass, is incapable of raising the temperature 
of the most delicate thermometer," 

" The Lancet " says r 

"The moon's rays when concentrated, actually reduce the 
temperature upon a thermometer more than 8°." 

^ When light and heat are received by a reflector, light 
and heat are reflected, as the reader may prove for himself, 
by testing the matter with a petroleum lamp and a reflector. 

If a red light be projected on to the surface of a reflector 
the reflection of it is red. In line, reflectors reflect just what 
they receive. 

If fish be hung up to dry in the sun, they will be 
preserved. But if exposed to the moon, will be rendered 
putrid in one night. The same applies to fruits, See, clearly 
proving that the light of the moon cannot be of the same 
nature as that of the sun. And, furthermore, that the moon 
shines by its own light. The nearest approach to moonlight 
is phosphorescent light. And if the moon and stars be 
observed through a telescope, it will be noticed that .starlight 
and moonlight, except in a few cases, are identical ; the .size 
of the star determining its brilliancy, on the principle that 
the larger the star the greater will its brilliancy be. " Sun, 
Moon, and Stars," page 57, says : 

The theory that moonlight is only reflected sunlight 
requires that the illuminated part of the moon be always next 
the sun. Unfortunately for the theory, however, this is not 
the case. 

If the Moon be observed from last quarter to new, it will 
be found that for a portion of one day, immediately before 
new moon, the dark part of the moon is turned towards the 
sun ; and at new moon the sun is still to the eastward of the 
moon, which is illuminated on its western surface. 

On roth August, i8g8, at Durban, Natal, the moon rose 
at 1.7 a.m., and by sunrise (6.35) was high in the heavens, 
showing about half on her eastern surface. On 15th, moon 
rose 4.56 a.m. ( 6.30), with a very small portion of 
eastern limb illuminated, but the whole circle was distinctly 
visible. Un 16th, moon rose 5.32 a.m. (sunrise 6.29) with the 
dark part towards the sun. On lyih, moon rose 6.4 a.m, 
(sunrise 6.28), 24 minutes before the sun, Xew moon same 
• day 0.35 p.m., the moon's illuminated western limb bej 


turned away from the sun, which was to the eastward. On 
i8th, moon rose 6.36 a,m, (sunrise 6.27), and the sun was thus 
ahead of the moon, and on the illuminated side, having 
passed her between the hours of sunset on the 17th and sun- 
rise on the 18th. Anyone who cares to take the time and 
make the necessary observations, may satisfy himself on this 
point. The almanac shows that at every new moon, the sun 
is to the east of the moon, which is illuminated on her 
western surface, clearly proving that the moon is a self- 
luminous body, and not a reflector of sunlight. 

But how about the " phases " of the moon, if she is self- 
luminous ? If the moon be observed it will be apparent that 
she rotates from west to east in order to produce the various 
phases, each phase appearing in spite of the position of the 
sun. This shows that she is luminous on half her surface, 
the dark half being towards us when she is invisible. 

Take a wooden ball and rub half its surface with a 
solution of phosphorous in olive oil. Place the ball in a 
dark room, and cause it to rotate, and all the phases, repre- 
senting those of the moon will be manifested. 

It is said that the moon has been photographed and that 
extinct volcanoes, dry watercourses, &c., have been found on 
its surface. The place were seas once were, it is alleged, 
have not only been photographed, but named, and thus there 
is nothing wanting to show that the moon was once inhabited 
— a world like ours. 

We know that " poets are licensed to lie," but astro- 
nomers who claim that their science is the most exact of any, 
and admits of demonstration, should be careftil to speak the 
truth, surely. How then are photos of the moon obtained r 
Sir R. Ball shall tell us. In "The Story of the Heavens," 
note on page 62, says : 

" This sketch has been copied by permission from the very 1 
beautiful view in Messrs. Nastnyth and Carpenter's book. ... V 
So have also the other ilhistrations of hinar scenery in Plates 
7, 8, g, Thi photographs wire obtained by Mr. Nasinyth/rom models 
carefully conslrucled by him la illustrate the features of the moon." 

In the text. Sir Robert very carefully says that 
" This is no donbt a. somewhat imaginary sketch." 

Read also the following from " Answers to 
Questions," by W. Bathgate, M,A. : 


" The author of a work called ■ The Plnraity of Worlds,' 
says : ' Take the appearance of the heavenly bodies, the i 
examine its appearance by the best constructe<i telescope 



all that has been written upon it by the most skilful astronomers, 
and nothing remains to satisfy a mind that thinks and reasons 
for itself, a mind not warped by theory and fanciful hypothesis. 

The mountains and valleys, the seas and nvers, the 

fields and orchards, are all in the head of the observer. Ever 
since I looked at the moon through a good telescope, I have been 
much surprised at the credulity of the human mind in the 
combination of opinions raised from the appearance of this 

planet These discoveries are hypothetical. You will 

not elicit them by applying the rules of the Baconian philosophy, 
or by looking through a telescope, aided by the science of 

No, gentle reader, there are no " extinct volcanoes" on 
the moon ; there are no " saas " on her surface. You have 
been badly " had " by the profession, that is all. Let photo- 
graphy be questioned as to the possibility ot securing a 
correct picture of an object at a distance of 240,000 miles ! 


From " Wonders of the Sun, Moon, and Stars " I extract 
the following : 

" Astronomers, by mere calculation, are able to forecast the 
position of any luminary at any time for many years to come. 
By the same means, they can foretell to a second, the commence- 
ment, duration, precise aspect, and the ending of all the eclipses 
that will occur for a lifetime hence, and more, without limitation. 
Such being the case^ the theories upon which the calculations are based 
must be true, or the correctness of such calculations would be 

This statement, and similar ones so often made, have 
had the eifect desired by their inventors. The public have 
believed that the theory of a globular world is true, because 
astronomers can correctly foretell eclipses. This is a totally 
erroneous view of the matter, as eclipses have no connection 
with the shape of the world, and are not calculated on any 
theory, but on well-known time cycles. In " Pagan Astro-r 
nomy," by A. Mclnnes, the following occurs : 

" More than 2,000 years ago the Chaldeans presented to 

Alexander the Great at Babylon, tables of eclipses for 1,993 

years ; and the ancient Greeks made use of the cycle of 18 years, 

Ji days, the interval between two consecutive eclipses of the 

same dimensions. The last total ec\ipse oi VYie svixi oiicvixt^^ a\i 

Jan. 22, i8y^, and the prece^ng one on ^an, Wy x'^^^ ^w^^ 



have oat mere thearisiug about the sua and moon— the great 
unerring clocks of time— thrown chronology and the calendar 
into confusion, and hence scientists cannot agree as to the 
world's age, and the vear absurdly begins on Jan. i instead of at 
the vernal eqiiitjojt, the month? consisting of 31 or 30 days, one 
of z8 ? However, it can be shtiwn that, wllh ei;lipse and star 
transit cycles, the greatest accuracy as to dates may be attained. 
"Going back, for example, from Jan. it, [S5i. through 3 
period of thirty-six eclipses, or 651 years, we find that a total 
eclipse occurred also on Jan. 11, izio; and, continuing back- 
wards, by such cycles we arrive precisely at the date of creation 
as^ven by Moaes in Genesis. Also, as related by Joaephus, the 
moon was eclipsed in the fifth month of 3,91)8 a.m., when Herod 
the Great died, and Christ being then twn years old, His birth 
occurred 3,996." 

In "The Triumph of Philosophy," Mr, J, Gillespie 
informs us as follows : 

" I am asked to take into consideration how they, with the 
present theory, can calculate and foretell eclipses and other 
events with surprising accuracy. Now, I can prove that long 
before the present theory was ever thought of, even 600 years 
before Christ, the ancients discovered tbe difference of local 
time or the hour of the day between places of different longitudes, 
knew the causes and laws of eclipses, and the motion of the sun, 
inoou and stars with surprising accuracy," 

R. J. Morrison, F.A.S.L., R.N,, in his " New Principia," 




'■ Eclipses, occultations, the positions of the planets, the 
motions of the fixed stars, the whole of practical navigation, 
the grand phenomena of the course of tbe sun, and the return 
of the comets, may ail and everj' one of them he as accurately, 
nay, more accnrately, known without the farrago of mystery the 
mathematicians have adopted to throw dust in the eyes of tbe 
people, and to claim honours to which they have no just title. 

The public generally believe that the longitudes of the 

heavenly budies are calculated on the principles of Newton's 
laws. Nothing coiilit he more false." 

T. G, Ferguson, in the Earth Revieiv, for SeptemberJ 
18941 says : 

" No doubt some will say, ' Well, how do the astronomers.^ 
foretell the eclipses so accurately.' This is done by cycles, TheA 
Chine se for thousands of years have been able to predict the" / 
varioiis~solar and'liinar eclipses, and do so now, in spite gfjhek, I ' 
disbelief in the theories ol Newton and Copernicns. ."Keith says, d 
' The cycle of the moon is said to have been discovered by Metanj J 

n Athenian, b.c. 433,' when, ot covuse, lUe ^\o\i\iM "Cfte.'arj -**«^ 

tf dreamt <^" 



E. Breach, in his " Fifty Scientific Facts," says : 

" Sir Richard Phillips in his Million Facts, says, « Nothing 
therefore can be more impertinent than the assertion of modem 
writers that the accuracy of astronomical predictions arises from 
any modern theor>\' Astronomy is strictly a science of obser- 
vation, and far more indebted to the false theory of Astrology, 
than to <he eaually false and fanciful theory of any modem. 

" We find that four or five thousand years ago, the mean 
motion of the Sun, Moon and Planets were known to a second, 
just as at present, and the moon*s nodes, the latitudes of the 
' / planets, &c., were all adopted by Astrologers in preparing 

horoscopes for any time past or present. Ephemerides of the 
' planets places, of eclipses, &c., have been published for above 
600 years, and were at first nearly as precise as at present." 

The same thing is admitted by Sir R. Ball, in his " Story 
of the Heavens." On page 56, he informs us : 

" If we observe all the eclipses in a period of eighteen years, 
or nineteen years, then we can predict, with at least an approxi- 
mation to the truth, all the future eclipses for many years. It 
is only necessary to recollect that in 6585! days after one eclipse 
a nearly similar eclipse follows. For instance, a beautiful 
eclipse of the moon occurred on the 5th of December, 1881. If 
we count back 6585 days from that date, .or, that is, 18 years 
and II days, we come to November 24th, 1863, and a similar 

eclipse of the moon took place then It was this rule 

which enabled the ancient astronomers to predict th$ occurrence of 
eclipses i at a time when the motions of the moon were not understood 
nearly so well as we now know them." 

The foregoing extracts speak for themselves, and show 
clearly that the statement quoted from "Wonders of the 
Sun, Moon, and Stars,*' is entirely fallacious. 

This same text book states on page 1 10 : 

" When the moon gets on the side of the earth precisely 
opposite the sun, the interpolation of the mass of the earth 
causes an eclipse of the moon." 

But this statement is stripped of all its glory by the fact 
that lunar eclipses have taken place when both sun and moon 
were in full view, as Sir H. Holland informs us, and which 
1 we have before referred to. 

But if there is a way to wriggle out of the logical con- 
clusion attaching to this fact, astronomers will find it, and so 
we are coolly informed that refraction is the cause of the 
moon being visible in such a case. The moon, it is said, is 
really below the horizon, but refraction has cast its image 
upwards and thus it can be seen. To sqxxate iVve tivatter^it is 
stated that this refraction amounts to " over ^o tcCvkvxX^^ ^X 


the horizon," Now, 30 minutes is about the diameter of the 
moon, and thus it is said that the refraction is over 30 minutes 
at the horizon, so that the phenomenon may be accounted 
for, and the moon, which is in full view, declared to be 
actually below the horizon. But this refraction is incapable 
of verification. Firstly, because refraction can only operate 
ivhen the moon and the observer are in different densities, 
and it cannot be proved that such is the case. And, secondly, 
if such were the case, it could not be proved that refraction 
amounts to over 30 minutes at the horizon. A table of 
refraction before me gives it as nearly 35 minutes at the 
horizon, and only 3' at an angle of 17^". This is so utterly 
impossible, that it must be rejected. 

The only object of the table for the horizon seems to be 
to account for the phenomenon we have mentioned. But it 
is really too transparent, and must be cast aside as worthless 
and a.s being an endeavour to make theoretical astronomy 
tally with the facts. The fact that sun and moon have been 
seen above the horizon at a lunar eclipse, completely dis- 
proves the theory that the earth has got between the two 
luminaries. Refraction cannot be proved to exist, because 
it cannot be proved that the moon is in a greater density 
I than the observer. And even if we "assume" the moon to 

I be in surh greater density the amount of it is entirely 
uncertain, and thus the theory in it's entirety must be rejected, 
^ E. Breach; in his " Fifty Scientific Facts," says; 

" It is supposed that an eclipse of the moon is caused by the 
earth intervening between the sun and moon. The earth in 
reckoned to travel t.ioo miles per minute ; how lonR would it be 
passing the moon, travelling herself at iSo miles per minute? 
Not (our minutes. Vet the last eclipse of the moon, on February 
iSth, lasted 4J hours ; so it could not be the earth intervening, 
as both lumiDarics were above the horizon when the eclipse 
coininenced, and the spots of the moon could be seeD Histiiiclly 
through the shadow ; the moon was also seen among the stars." 

This is a hard nut for Newtonians to crack, and not quite 
so easy of accomplishment as "cracking the crust" of their 
globe theory. 

But the battle is not won yet. There is another bug. 
bear to face. It is alleged by the learned that at a lunar 
eclipse the earth casts a shadow on the moon, by intercepting 
the light of the sun. The shadow, it is alleged, is circular, 
and as only a globe can cast a circular shadow, and as that 
shadow is cast by the earth, of courst \.Vve eaxxltv \'e. a. '^•^^i. 
fact, what better proof could au^ tea&oTia^X^ ■'^^'^^^ 


require r " Powerliil reasoning," says the dupe. Let us see. 
I have already cited a case where sun and moon have been 
seen with the moon eclipsed, and as the earth was not 
betwuen. or they bulh could not have been seen, the shadow 
said to be on the moon could not possibly have been cast by 
the eanh- Bui as refraction is charged with raising the 
moon above the horizon, when it is said to be really beneath, 
and the amount of refraction made to tally with what would 
be required to square the matter, let us see how refraction 
would act in regard to a shadow. Refraction can only exist 
where the object and the observer are in different densities. 
If a shilling be put in the bottom of a glass and observed 
there is no refraction ; but as soon as water is poured into 
the basin, there is refraction. Refraction casts the image of 
the shilling UPWARDS, but a shadow always dcnvnwards. 
If a basin be taken and put near a light, so that the shadow 
of the edge touches the bottom of the basin, and a rod be 
placed on the shadow and water be poured in, the shadow 
will shorten inwards and HO'VfH'W \'R.'t)?t \ but if the rod is 
allowed to rest in the basin and water poured in, the rod will 
appear to be bent UPWARDS, This places the matter 
beyond dispute and proves that it is out of the range of 
possibility that the shadow said to be on the moon could be 
that of the earth. Herschel admitted that there are many 
invisible moons in the sky, and it is Just one of these that 
eclipses the moon, being visible as it passes over her 
luminous surface. But even if we admit refraction, and that 
to the extent seemingly required to prove that when the 
eclipsed moon is seen above the horizon with the sun visible, 
the moon is in reality below the horizon, we are still con- 
fronted with a fact which entirely annihilates every theory 
propounded to account for the phenomenon. Taking the 
astronomers' own equation of 8" to themile, varying inversely 
as the square of the distance, for the curvature of the earth, 
where sun and moon are both seen at a lunar eclipse, the 
centre of the sun is said to be in a straight line with the 
centres of the earth and the moon, each luminary being go'' 
from the observer. This would give about 6,000 miles as the 
distance of each body from the observer. Now, what is the 
curvature in 6,000 miles r No less than 24,000,000 feet or 
■1.545 miles. Therefore, according to the astronomers own 
showing an observer would have lo get up into space 4,545 
miles before he could see both sun and moon above his horizon 
at a lunar eclipse ! ! ! As lut\ar ec\\pses \\a.\e beeu seen from 
the surface of the earth with sun atvd -mooTv \>qW alQasfej^a 

^iionzot^t the same time, it is conclusively proved THAT 
I and, therefore, that the world is a plane, and cannot by any 
I possibility be globular. This one proof alone demolishes for 
I ever the fabric of astronomical imagination and popular ■ 

In The Belfast Seivs Letter, there appeared the foUowiny j 
letter : 

T" Ihc Eifitor «/ Ihc Belfast Niks LeiUr. 
'• Sir, — I have been requeKted to direct attention to I 
forthcominB eclipse of the moon, which will take plat 
38th instant, and have much pleasure in doing so. 

"On Friday next this interesting phenomenon will take'J 
place during the ordlnar}- observing hours of the evening, and , 
will, no doubt, attract some attention should the weather prove 
favourable. The first contact of the disc of the moon with the 
shadow of the earth will take place al about eight minutes to 
six o'clock in the evening ; the middle of the eclipse happening 
at twenty-two minutes past seven o'clock ; and the last contact 
of the moon's disc with the earth's shadow will take place about 
nine o'clock p.m. The eclipse will be a partial one, hut a large 
area of the lunar disc will be immersed in the shadow of the 
earth. If the diameter of the moon be laken as unity, the 
maRuilnde of the eclipse will be a'Sy. The first contact of the 
lunar disc with the shadow may be looked for at 85° eastward 
from the northernmost portion of the limb of the moon ; and 
the last contact with the shadow will take place at 30° from same 
starting point in a westerly direction, .' 

" It will be interesting to those people who have recentk-ij 
been treated to a dissertation on (he non-rotundity o^ the earut^ 
by i member of the so-called Zelelic Society (an association ^ 
formed with the object of proving, amongst other things scarcely 
orthodox from an astronomical point of \'iew, that the earth is 
not a sphere, but is rather a great flat plaini, to watch the well- 
defined circular shadow which the earth will, by its interposition 
lietwecn the sun and moon, cast upon the disc of the latter 
body. — Yours truly, 


Dalriada, Malone Park, Belfast, 
24th February, i8g6." 

In a subsequent issue of the paper the following,^ 
appeared ; 

To the Editor aj the Belfast Nem I.ttUr. 
" Sir,— Having come across Mr. W, Kedfeni Kelly's letter" 
on the above in your issue of the 15th, it occurred to me that 
the writer is mistaken in thinking the Zetetic Planeist's (as thev 
call themselves] ideas ran be injured or sweot a.wa.-^ Vrj ^kui^V 
ler/iciai remarks. Unfortunately tor \hfc ^w)>j\a.i s\i«.,^cias."3 - 
e laken place when the s\m Vas >:iteii alowi«iY~ 

idea thiit it is the shadow of the intervening eartb projectei 
the moon by the sun. Again, the moon is recorded to have been 
eclipsed by a triangular shadow. This, of course, makes the 
Newtonians' case still worse. As to the accepted idea that the 
foretellins of eclipses proved the truth of the Newtonian 
hypotheslB, this must be only mentioned to be ignored, it being 
well known and allowed by those who have studied this branch 
of astronomy to be merely a matter of correct observations 
during a series of years to foretell the exact lime of either Inoar 
or solar eclipses for an indefinite number of years, and has 
nothing whatever to do with the shape of the world, 

" 1 trust the writer of the letter in question and other 
champions of the Newtonian system In Belfast will see the 
weakness of their attack in this mstance, and take counsel, so 
as to attack these stubborn -minded globe- smashers or planeists 
in a more vulnerable position. Apologising for trespassing on 
vour valuable space, and thanking you in anticipation foe 
inserting my letter. — I am, dear sir, yours, 

March loth. H. H. D'ARCHY ADAMS." 

The following letters, published in the Earth Revieto, in 
6, were refused insertion in the Belfast News Letter ; 

To the Editur of thi Belfast Seii's Letter. 
" Sir, — In your issue of yesterday, I observe an article by 
Mr. Kedfem Kelly, relative to the coming lunar eclipse. In that 
article reference is made to the Zetetic Society and its conten- 
tion, vi/. ; — that the earth is not globular. This, indeed, is the 
contention, and the Society is indebted to Mr. Kelly for the 
opportunity thus afforded of giving some of their vlewspnbljcly, 
particularly in this instance with regard to eclipses. Now, the 
fact may be gainsaid, but cannot be logically demed, that the 
surface of standing water is horizontal. Water has 
been pro\'ed repeatedly by the Zetetic School to be fiat or Tevel, 
without curvature. Such being the case the narth must aii3 does 
conform to that conliguration with the sun and moon above the 
surface. With such conditions it is obvious a shadow of the 
earth cannot operate, Ixilh luminaries being overhead, and 
several instances are on record where eclipses have taken place 
when sun and moon have been above the horizon, the earth 
being out of range of both. Of course it will be argued that 
refraction operated in such cases, and at first this, explanation 
may appear plausible, but on carefully examining the subject it 
is found to be irradequale, and those who have recourse to H 
cannot be aware that the refraction of an object and that of a 
shadow are in opposite directions. An object by re&Bction \» 
l>ent upwards, but the shadow of any object is bent dowawards, 
as will be seen by the following simple experiment : — Take a 
plain white shallow basin, and place it ten or twelve inches tmta 
a light in such a position that the shadow of the edgt of the basin 
touches the centre of the bottom. Hold a rod verticaJJy ovM 
and on the edge of the shadow, to denote its true position ; now 
let water be gradually pouted mlo \.W basin, -Aiii. V^xt shadowia 
will be seen to recede or shurttn tuwarclt 'iiift aiiM;inBavd\^\f ■ " - 


rod or a spoon is allowed to rest, with Its upper end toward the 
light, and the lower end in the bottom o'f the vessel, it will be 
seen as the water is poured In to bend upaiards^-tiiUB proving 
that if refraction operated at all It would do bo by elevalinf; the 
moon ubove Its true position, and ttirowing the earth's shadow 
downwards, or directly away from the moou's surface. Hence 
it is clear that a lunar eclipse by a sliadow of the earth i>^ not 
possible. It is admitted by Herschel and other astronomers that 
inyisible bodies exist in the Brniament, and such an amount of 
evidence on this point has accumulated as to put tlie matter 
beyond all dotibt — such bodies, though invisible to the naked 
eye, become apparent when in a line between an observer and 
a luminous tiody like the moon, the interveutiou of such a body 
(savs the celebrated Zetetic Astronomer known as "Parallax") 
i is the direct cause of a lunar eclipse. There are instances on 
I record showing that some other cause existed than that of the 
earth's shadow to produce an eclipse. 

" Mr. Walker, who observed the lunar eclipse of March 19th, 
1848, near Collumpton, says, ■ the appearances were as usual 
until twenty minutes past nine, at that period, and for the space 
of the next hour, instead of an eclipse or shadow (umbra) of the 
earth being the cause of the total obscurity of the moon, the 
whole phase of that body became very quickly and most 
beautifully illuminated, and assumed the appearance of the 

i glowing heat of fire from the furnace, rather tinged with a deep 
red, the a-koUdisc of the moon beint; as perfect with light as if 
there had been no eclipse whatever. THE MOON POSITIVELY 
TOTAL ECLIPSE.' Of course it will be asked how the phases 
of the moon can be accounted for on the Zetetic basis. The 
reply is, the moon is semi- luminous, shining with an itidepindeiil 
light 0/ its own, one side is illuminated and the other not, as it 
revolves, all the phases we are familiar with become apparent. 
That the moon is not a perfectly opaque body, but a crystalised 
substance, is shown from the fact that when a few hours old or 
even at quarter we can through the unilluminated portion see 
, the light shining on the other side. Stars have also been 

I observed through her surface. In conclusion (for I have already 
transgressed with regard to valuable space), 1 would observe 
that a system requiring for its support such a condition and 
such belief as that associated with the antipodian theory, must 
necessarily be absolutely theoretical, and consequently devoid 
of any facts ! 
aeth February, 1896. J. ATKINSON." 









To the Editor of the Belfast News Letter. 

May I| with your kind permission, ask W. Redfero 
' Kelly, Esq., F.R.A.S., to a 

r In your columns the following 

■Prove by any practical demonstation that it is " the 
shadow of the earth'' thai eclipses the moon. 

md.—Why is it that the ' shadow' is no^ aiwi-ja a. ^uAs&aj. 
I 0oe, and not always the same sue 1 ■ - - 


3rd. — As the duration of the eclipse of the moon on 
February 28th lasted 3 hours 8 minutes, will he kindly explain why 
eclipses in Ptolemy's time lasted over 4 hours ? 

4th. — Is it not possible that one of the * dark bodies * which 
Anaxagoras said * were lower than the moon and move between 
it and the earth * is the cause of lunar eclipses ? If not, why not ? 

5th. — Will he, by a practical experiment upon the earth's surface, 
or surface of standing water anywhere in the world, give us ONE 
proof that the earth is ^ an oblate spheroid ?* 

Awaiting his esteemed replies, which I trust, for the elucida- 
of Truth, you will allow me to reply to. — I remain, yours 

J. WILLIAMS, Hon. Secretary, 
Universal Zetetic Society, 

32, Bankside, London, S.E. 

To the Editor of the Belfast News Letter, 

Sir, — In your issue of Tuesday, February 25th, I noticed a 
letter referring Zetetics to the eclipse of the moon on the 28th of 
the same month, for a proof of the supposed globularity of the 

If the writer had first given proof that it is the shadow of the 
earth which falls upon the moon, there would have been some 
support for his contention; but he, like all astronomers, first 
assumes that it is ' the shadow of the earth,* and secondly, that 
nothing but a globe can cast a circular shadow ! Let him clear 
his argument, if we can call it one, of these underlying assump- 
tions which vitiate it, by giving some proof of his premises, then 
I will, with your kind permission, examine whether his conclusions 
necessarily follow. 

I, as one of those Zetetics your correspondent refers to, did 
watch the eclipse as far as the cloudy state of the skv would 
permit, and I must state that I drew conclusions from the 
phenomena very different horn those he would draw, and in 
favour of the Zetetic position. 

As Mr. Kelly seems kindly disposed towards the * so-called 
Zetetic Society,' and seeks to instruct them in correct astrono- 
mical principles, he will, perhaps, after giving the proofs above 
asked for, be good enougn to instruct us on the following points : 

(i) Why did the * shadow of the earth ' begin to obscure the 
moon's light on her eastern limit ? 

(2) Why did the * shadow ' not go right across the moon's disc, 
i,e.t in the same general direction, as all the bodies involved con- 
tinued in the same course as they were in when the eclipse 
commenced ? 

(3) Why did the * shadow,' after commencing to obscure the 
moon on her left or eastern edge, gradually disappear at the top 
or upper surface of the moon ? 

(4) If the moon's light be only reflected sunlight, why is not 
all that light cut off when the earth is supposed to come in 
between the sun and the moon ? In other words, how is it the 

moon's disc can be dimly seen vrlieii and viYiet^ 1^^ \lln\ninating 
light is cut off, even to ta« extent ol z, Xo\.a\ ecAiv^*^ Nsid 


(s) Can your correspondent give u; any testimony whatever, 
not vitiated by astronomic il hypothesis, going to prove that tha 
earth, which ordinarily feels so stable, has any of the awful 
motions attributed to it ? 

If facts can be shown in answer to the above questions, and ' 
in favour of the popular contention, I can promise your corres- i 
pondent that his efforts will not be thrown away on Zetetica, ] 
Decause, as far as I am acquainted with them, and as their name 
implies, they are honest and fearless investigators of the truth J 
in these matters. — I am. Sir, yours respectfully, 

23, East Park Road, Leicester. 

It is thus left on record that the columns of the Belfast \ 
News Letter were closed to that open and above-board dis- i 
cussion for which the Prer.s should be celebrated. A "Free 1 
Press" is what is wanted, so that the public may have bulh 
sides of the matter before them and thus be able to judge for J 
themselves. But it is mostly the other way. Letters dealing , 
with unpopular subjects, or taking a side against the I 
commonly- accepted "view," are often consigned to the 
waste-paper basket. In this connection, however, I desire I 
to bear witness to the freedom of the Press in this Colony. 
Nowhere in the world, is there that liberty and freedom ot j 
thought that should characterise a free people, as is found in 
Natal. At least that is my opinion. And certainly I know of no ; 
other place that can boast of such impartiality in the matter I 
of newspaper correspondence as enjoyed by the people of ] 

I have now finished my dissertation on the theories of | 
astronomers regarding the moon, and we have seen that, as . 
in every other case we have considered, there is not a word 
of truth in the statements ot the " learned " concerning the i 
" lesser light that rules the night." 


^^^^ In a work entitled " Magnetism and Deviation of the 
' Compass." by J. Merrifield, L.L.D., F.R.A.S., 10th Edition, 
page 4, the statement is made that : 

" When a magnet is suspended by a thread without torsioDi 
or on a pivot so as to move freely, it will, when left to itself, rest 
only in a vertical plane which stands nearly North and South." 

hi/ this statement be read with an aTtvft.cvaX ^cfe^\'^'^v6:^ 
ssurance is at once conveyed to t.\\emVt\4'*v^X'0cv&^^'^ 



of the world cannot be globular. On a vessel at'i^ 
compass needle could not point nearly north and south on a 
(globular surface, but would point into the sky at both ends. 
To point north on the equator it would dip toward.s the North 
Pole at an angle of 45°, while the south end would be the 
same angle above the horizon, pointing into the sky. Only 
on a flat surface could the statement of Dr. Merrifield be 
true. What we know is that the compass needle is 
horizontal, except in high latitudes, and there, although it 
dips, spins round, and does various other extraordinary 
things, no constant of dip can be found. It is never the same 
at the same latitude at different times. In fact, there is 
nothing yet discovered that accounts for the deviation of the 
compass, lateral and vertical. 

In an article in the Nineteenth Century, 1895, by C. R. 
Markham, it is stated that : 

" Professor Neiimayer writes that without an examiDa.tioii 
and survey of the magnetic properfies of the antarctic reEions, 
it is utterly hopeless to strive with prospects of success, at the 
advancement of (he theory of the earth's magnetism," 

It is confessed that our knowledge of what is called the 
earth's magnetism is very scanty. The Journal of the Society 

i7/"j4rA of 20th March, 1896, says: 

" Magneticai observations in the south are at present not 
only urgently needed for the purpose of navigation, but also for 
supplying a missing link in our knowledge of terrestrial 

And Lord Kelvin, speaking at Burlington House, on 
30th November, 1893, .stated : 

" We are cerlaialy far from having any reasonable explanii- 
tion of any of the magnetic phenomena of the earth." 

It is evident that the sun has something to do with 
magnetism, as disturbances of sun spots have often been 
accompanied by disturbances of magnetic needles. 

The dipping needle is an instrument constructed to 
record the dip at various latitudes. But as this instrument 
does not allow of the needle moving in a lateral direction, it 
is useless for any determination of the deviation of the 
horizontal needles. It has been claimed that it proves the 
globular .shape of the earth, by recording the dip of the 
horizontal needles. This, however, it does not, and in its 
very construction cannot do, ioT the teii^ou ioo-^ft ^u.t.ed. In 
'^ndon, in latitude 51^ north, t\ve 4\vvvt\^ TvfeeSVft s?w|~ 

ments should show that the dip is that amount, if the theory 
be true. In " Magnetism," by Sir W. Snow Harris, page 
163, it is recorded that : 

" Sabine in iSzi deleriiiiueij tbe incliDation in London by 
scHlatioa and by Mayer's needle, and ^ 

arrived at the three following ri 
methods of oscillation, 70° 4' and 70° ; 


It is evident, therefore, that we have not yet sufficient 
information regarding magnetism to lay down any definite 
rules for determining the cause and cure of deviation, 
whether lateral or vertical. In Harris' " Magnetism," page 
254, it is stated that " Our planet is a magnet," and " that a 
magnetic bar is horizontal at the equator, and that in north 
latitude the north end of the bar dips /awards the south, while 
in south latitude the south end dips towards the north." That 
is to say, in both north and south latitudes the compass 
points ujnoards. This is clear from the figure(i27, page 254}. 



In " Magnetism and Electricity," by W. G. Baker, we^ 
find an illustration of the same supposed principle on page ] 
16. Unfortunately for the exposition of Sir W. Snow Hai 
the figure accompanying the text states the case to be the \ 
very reverse ol that gentteman'.s figure. 

^^K N^ ~~. 8 

^^^Fln this figure, the bar dips down from the centre of theJJ 

' magnetic field — the equator — towards both north and south. , 

Both these books are standard works on the subject ofjl 

" Magnetism," and yet in this, the most important of all^ 

points, they are exactly opposite! 

The statement of Sir W. Harris will not bear investiga- ] 
. tion. It may be an easy way of " exp\Bi.\wvu%" V^VvOin. "iSiSsJ 
Limned are good atj, but it does nol agvee vj^xV la-cv.. 

Mr. Norman H. Pollock, writing Irom 115, Broadvrajl 
1 York, on 4th December, 1897, informs me as follows; 

" Vour letter of enqiiin- dated Nov. 2 received. 1 am BOtry 
that I cannot throw much light on the subject of the 'dip' of 
the compass. The vessel I was on was a wooden steamer, 
copper fftstened. With the exception of the engine, and ancbort 
and chains, there was no iron about her. The compaws 
worked well until we were abont 100 miles froni the entrance to 
Hudson Straits, when they became utterly useless. We had 
about thirty of them, and no two pointed in the same direction. 
When whirled around they did not stop towards the north, but 
in all directions, and when they did stop the needle was depressed 

about 45° and usually stationary I was on shore 

inothing but rock) and did not see iron ore The highest 

latitude was about 67° " 

It is well known that magnetism acts in a straight line. 
This of itself is sufficient to prove that the earth cannot be a 
globe ; because on a globe, wherever the magnetic influence 
came from, the needle would point in that direction; some- 
times down through the ship's keel, and always at an angle 
that would render it useless to the navigator. The truth 
.about magnetism has yet to be discovered, but even in our 
present state of knowledge, the weight of evidence goes to 
show that the world cannot be the globe of popular belii " 



B It must be obvious to the reader that, if the earth be 1 
globe of popular belief, the rules obseiTed for navigating a 
vessel irom one part of this globe to another, must be in con- 
formity to its figure. The datum line in navigation would be 
an arc of a circle, and all computations would be based on 
the convexity of water and worked out by spherical trigo- 

Let me preface my remarks on this important branch of 
our subject by stating that at sea the datum line is always a 
horizontal line ; spherical trigonometry is never used, and 
notone out of one thousand shipmasters understands spherical 
trigonometry. ^^m 

In " Modern Science and Modern Thought," by ^^| 
Laing, we are informed, on page 54, that: ^H 

'■ These calculations are as certain as those^^ 

the nautical almanac, baud an the law uf gravUy WHICH 


P- I have used the Nautical Almanac somewhat, but this is 
the first intimation I ever had that the few things it contains 
which are useful to the iiavigator, viz r Sun's Declination, 
Equation of Time, Seniidiameter, and such-like, are "based 
on the law of gravity." Nor did I ever suspect that the 
calculations of the nautical almanac " enable ships to find 
their way across the pathless ocean," Such utter mis-state- 
ments may suit the unthinking man to bolster up his theory, 
but they declare to the complete ignorance of the critic 
regarding practical navigation. A knowledge of the facts 
compels me to jettison the cargo to lighten the ship of such 
absurd misrepresentations. Sun's declination is the sun's 
distance north or south of the equator. Semi*diameter of a 
heavenly body is half the diameter which has to be added to 
the reading if the lower limb be taken, and substracted if the 
upper limb be observed, so as to get the altitude of the 
centre of the object. Equation of time is the difference 
between the real sun and the sun which the astronomer 
supposes to rise and set every day alike, called the mean 
sun. Except in taking lunars, these are all the elements 
required from the nautical almanac to work out an observa- 
tion. In lunars the moon's parallax and right ascension 
are used and are given in the nautical almanac. The first of 
these depends on the moon's position and the second is 
reckoned from the first point of Aries, one of the zodiacal 
signs and a point in the heavens. None of these elements 
have anything whatever to do with the shape of the earth, 
and certainly none are in any way connected with the bogus 
" law of gravity." To a practical man, Mr. Laing's state- 
ment is both untrue and absurd. 

Now let us go into the matter and see what actually is 
the case, and how and on what principle " ships find their 
way across the pathless ocean," 

I shall first deal with 


In "A Primer of Navigation," by A. T. Flagg, M.A., 
page 65, we find the following: 

■' Plaiii! Sailing.~-Whea a ship .^atls for el shorl distancp on 

one course, the earth is regarded as a plane or level surface 

The results obtained by this assumption, although not absolutely 
correct, are near enough in practice." 

This does not look as if the " law of gravity " had a hand 
in the matter ; neither, it must be cot\^esbeA, io^s '\^ ■a.^^'*^ ■ 
I that the Nautical Aimanac has an'y coutveOi.^iivjw^^^S 


I P'^gK ' 

r »g' 


subject. So while the reader is reflecting on what " figure" 
a glohc with a fUine or level surface would " cut," we may let 
^ the anchor for a brief space, so that A GI.OBE WITH A 
PLANE OR LEVEL SURFACE may be duly appreciated. 
If the reader cannot now find time to search Euclid and other 
works for the nondescript figure, he may find leisure some 
other time. But let us get the anchor aboard and proceed. 
In " Navigation and Nautical Astronomy," by J. R, 
Young, page 40, the author declares that : 

"PLANE SAILING is Qsuaily defined to be the art of 
navigating a ship on the supposition that the earth is a plane, 
This definition is erroneous in the extreme, in-i all sailings ifae 
earth is regarded as what it really is, 3 sphere. Everj' case of 
sailing, £roin which the consideration of loiigiliide Is excluded, 
involves the principles of plane sailing ; a name which nierely 
implies that although the path of a ship is on a spherical surface, 
yet we may represent the length of this path by a sli-aigkt lint on 

a plant stir/uce Even when longitude enters into coo- 

siacration, it is still wilh the ptuiie triangle viily that wi have to 

deal but as the investigation here given in the text 

shows, Ihc rules for plane sailing WOULD EQUALLY HOLD 

It must be evident to everyone who understands what a' 
triangle is, that the base of any such figure on a globe would 
be an arc of a circle, of which the centre would be the centre 
of the globe. Thus, instead of a PLANE triangle, the figure 
would contain one plane angle and two spherical angles. 
Hence, if the PLANE TRIANGLE is what we have to deal 
with, and such is the case, the base of I he triangle would be 
a straight line — the ocean. That all triangulation used at 
sea is pla/ie, proves that the sea is a plane. The foregoing 
quotation states that a plane triangle is used for a spherical 
surface, but " l/ie ruUs for plane sailing imuld equally hold good 
though the surface were a planed What fine reasoning. It is 
like saying that the rules for describing a circle are those 
used for drawing a square, but they would equally hold good 
though the figure were a square. 

From Mr. -Young, the mathematician, we ascend to 
Professor Evers, Doctor of Laws, surely he w'll be able to 
enlighten us. In his " Navigation in Theory and Practice," 
page 56, he tells us that : 

PLANE .^AILING is sailing a ship, or making tbc 
arithmolical calenlalions for so doing, on tin lusumflion that THE 

EARTH IS PERFECTLY FLAT It is not a strictly 

correct supposition to take any part whatever of the earth's 

surface as a plane ; yet when the vesae\ ^o&s lya shurt uuyoges, t^ 

iuits obtained by plane sa\Ung w.\\\« sujicunltj (Ovtwx % 

^^ ariti 

^^L I. EAl 

^^^^L surfs 


tvtry useful purpose. ..... Plap^ sailing ca^ot always be 

advantageously employed, ALTHOUGH IN l^KACTICE 


' ■ greal and serious objection to Plane Sailing is. thai longitude cannot 



This, I notice, extends the principle from "a short 
distance " by Flag-g, to "short VOYAGES" by Evers. A 
voyage, then, may be completed by plane sailing. That is, 
the rules used in navigating the ship on a short voyage will 
he those that would "hold good though the surface were a 
plane," Flat surface all the way, thai is it. But we are 
again confronted by " a globe with a plane or level surface;" 
clearly an impossibility. Now let us enquire how long the 
.sA(»*/iw>'a^e may be, to have "a plane surface all the way." 
In December, 1897, I met Captain Slocum on board the 
" Spray " This navigator told me that he had sailed his 
little craft Jj,ooo miles by plane sailing. Rather a LONG 
voyage, it must be admitted. A PLANE or LEVEL 
SURFACE for 33,000 miles, and yet the world a globe ? To 
the pre-historic "man of science" at the North Pole, and' 
the Darwinian Ape at the South Pole (r] of the astronomers* 
imaginary globe, with such a delusion. 

Let it be put on lasting record that " in practice scarcely 
any other rules are used but those derived from plane 
sailing;" and that although "the great and serious objection' 
to plane sailing ii that longitude cannot be found by it 
accurately," yet "IN PRACTICE IT IS MORE FRE- 

The only logical conclusion we can arrive at from the 
principles of Plane Sailing, as furnished by its mathematical 
expmients, is that IT PROVES THE WORLD A PLANE, 
and we know from actual practice that such is really the 

But before saying adieu to this navigation proof, we 
must quote still further. 

"Bergen's Navigation and Nautical Astronomy," 1st 
app., page 4, states : 



" If the course and distance wWcVv a ftVi^ \*'as saa^A oq, "Coft 
glahe be given, the difference ol \al\lad& a.tt4 4t^3.-rt.\«ft TO.-a^^»«i 
found by tbc resolution of a riglil- angled flaiw tTWi\&\er --^m 

We have before seen that " a right-angled-plane- 
triangle" on a globular surface is impossible. So there is 
no need to comment on Captain Bergen's statement. 

In " Navication," by D. Wilson Barker, R.N.R,, 
F.R.S.E., and W. Allinghara, Plane Sailing is dealt with on 
page zg as follows : 

I" We may now assume aa an axiom that the shape of tbfl 
earth somewhat resembles that of an orange. At one time 
\ people thought differently, but no sant person to-day tvimld vcnturi 

to assert that our planet is inertly uh extended pUine. Still we shall 
not be far out IF WE IMAGINE that the small portion o£ (he 
earth's sitifaae with which we are concerned in Plai\e Sailing is 
ACTUALLY A PLANE. Hence, in Plane Sailing, tegarding 
the small portion of the ocean with which we have to deal AS A 


These learned gentlemen say that no satie person to-day 
I would venture to assert that OUR PLANET is merely an 
extended plane ; and yet they ask the reader to admit their 
sanity when they furnish data which prove the world to be a 
plane! Wonderful learning and profound philosophy that 
fit a plane triangle on to a spherical surface. Surely A 
PAPER is a new figure, not found in Euclid or any of the 
works that deal with triangulation. We may well challenge 
the advocates of the globular theory to produce their globe 
with its plane or level surface like a sheet of paper, and be 
certain of their failure. 

The spectre called " our planet " only requires to be 
planed {just a little levelling] to reduce its surface to a 
plane ; and before we have finished the process the plane 
win be very plain indeed. 

In the "Natal Mercury" of 14th March, 1898, the 
following example of 2,000 miles of plane sailing is 
furnished ; 

I "Captain Moloney, of the " Briton," gave a representative 
of this journal particulars respecting the passage of the vessel 
through a dust storm on the way out. He said that they fell 
into the storm atwut 80 miles south of Madeira, and were in it 
for a distance of between 1,800 and 1,900 miles. They ii'ire 
mthouf observations /or 2,000 miles so Ihat tluy had to go 
over 2,000 miles on DEAD RECKONING." 
This terrible sand-storm visited another ship, and 
planed off the supposed convexity of the water, so that plane 
sailing could be carried out and even longitude found by it 
for a further distance of 900 m\\e&, as Vatv^^^ Wfe " Natal 
Mercury" of 25th February, i&q& ■. 


"The experieDce met with by the ' Roalin Caatle' on hec 

homeward journey was most extraordinary. A aand-storm of 
unprecedented density enveloped the vessel, and rendered obser- 
vation impossible for 900 miles. Madeira was reached bv means 

Plane Sailii>g proves that the surface of water is a plane I 
or horizontal surface " like a sheet of paper," and in practice 
it is shown that this plane extends for many thousands of 
miles. Whether the voyage is outwards, as in the case of 
the *' Briton " ; or homewards, as in the case of the " RosHn 
Castle," makes no difference; thus showing that a "short 
voyage " to the Cape and back to England can be accom- 
plished by plane sailing, flat water " like a sheet of paper " 
all the way. 

The fact that water is flat like a sheet of paper (when 
undisturbed by wind and tide) is my " working anchor," 
and the powerful " ground tackle " of all those who reject 
the delusions of modern theoretical astronomy. 

Prove water to be convex, and we will at once and 
forever recant and grant you anything you like to demand. 

I will not waste time by quoting Mercator's, Middle 
Latitude, and Parallel Sailings, for they are merely plane 
sailing extended. Let us get on to what unthinking navi- 
gators believe to be a proof of the globularity of the world, 


I gators [ 


irgen's "Navigation," ist appendix, page g, states : 

Great circle sailing i 
Ebortest distance reckoned on the earth's 
two points, is the arc of the great circle 

irface Between any 
iterccpted between 

The " arc of a circle " has undergone considerable , J 
planing when it leaves Mr. Wilson Barker's hands, for he 1 
informs us on page 95 that ; 

What, a straight line on a globular surface : Never, it j 
is impossible. When it can be obtained, we surrender. 

In " Navigation," by Rev. W. T. Read, M.A., page 51, 
the resource that is had to approximate great circle sailing 
is stated to be that : 

" Tie ve.'isei may be said to safl \JV01:\ "^Vi?. >a\t.^^ -A. * 
mmjsided PLANE FIGURE." 



So, after all, the earth is not a globe, but a flat-surfaced 
many-sided plane figure — A POLYGON ! 

But how long is Mr. Wilson-Barker's STRAIGHT line • 
When the corner of the Polygon was reached another straight 
line would have to be followed, and another on the next side, 
and so on. Truly, these paste-board navigators are all "at 
sea " and don't know whether the ship is in the water or the 
water in the ship. 

It is somewhat remarkable that J. R. Young, who so 
earnestly endeavours to support the globular hypothesis in 
his "plane sailing," does not even mention "great circle 
sailing" in his work aheady referred to. Plane sailing is 
sailing on a plane and there is not the remotest chance of 
proving convexity from it. If there be any semblance of 
globularity it can only be found in what is known as great 
circle sailing. There is, in reality, no such thing as sailing 
on a great circle, or on any circle except a flat one. On a 
globe, all circles that do not pass through the centre are 
called small circles, and to sail on one of them, it is said, is 
on the Rhomb-line or Mercator track, and the longest 
distance. But on any great circle — ^any circle that passes 
through the centre of the globe — tht distance is said to be 
ihe shortest. The arc of the great circle between any two 
places on it is the shortest distance and is the great circle 

I have already shown that water is level, " like a sheet 
of paper," as one author puts it. It is, therefore, quite impos- 
sible to sail a vessel on the globular arc of a circle, which is 
said to be done in following a great circle track. But 
Bergen's " Navigation " will help us. Page 247 of this work 
states that the great circle track may be found on a great 
circle chart by laying a straight edge on the ship's position 
and that of her destination, "the edge shows the track," 

We simply ask for the globe that will bear the applica- 
tion of the straight edge. If it be argued that the great 
circle chart is merely a device for reducing the globular 
surface of the earth to a plane surface for the sake of 
simplicity, and that a curved surface can be represented by 
a straight line, we say it is impossible to represent a curved 
surface by a straight line and absurd to make the attempt, 
and we have already shown that water is flat, " like a sheet 
of paper " ; we are, therefore, fully entitled to conclude that 
Captain Bergen's straight edge is applicable to a straight 
sur/atre only. That this is what is leaW'^ t'tve ca.=>e will appear 

W 1 

^^^ Rhomb-line sailing, which was mostly practised under ^^ 
certain conditions before Great Circle sailing was " dis- 
covered," is sailing the longest way round. The difference 
between the methods will be seen in the following ; — Describe ^^ 
a circle, and mark any two places on it, say A and B. Let ^^M 
the circle be 12 miles in circumference, and A and B 3 miles ^^M 
apart. It is evident that if the rhomb-line from A to B be ^H 
followed, the distance sailed will be 3 miles ; but draw a 
straight line from A to B, and it will at once be seen that by 
following this track the distance will be shortened to 2^ 
miles. T/it's straight line is the great circle track between A and 
B. Or, if a piece of thread be drawn across a globe between 
any two places, the track thus obtained will be part of a 
great circle, and if this be transferred to a Great Circle chart 
IT WILL BE A STRAIGHT LINE, Therefore I conclude 
that great circle sailing is no discovery, for, had those who 
"discovered" it only perceived that the earth is a plane, 
they would have known that, on a plane surface, the shortest 
way is a straight line between two places. 

Rhumb-line sailing between any two places on the same, 
parallel of latitude, would be sailing the ship east or west 
(as the case might be), tlnis makiito a circular path ; whereas 
the great circle track would either be to the north or south of 
east or west, so as to get a straight line between the twO' 
places, which would be the shortest distance. It is surprising 
that anyone has claimed this as a discovery, and still more 
surprising to find anyone with a knowledge of navigation 
writing it down as proof of the earth's rotundity, THE 

Thus, great circle sailing, which is in reality rectilinear 
sailing, shows that the chord oi the arc is a shorter distance 
than the arc, inasmuch as a str..ight line is shorter than a 
roundabout one can be. Let it be noted, however, that great 
circle courses are seldom followed on account of land and 
other impediments being in the way. Now we return to 
"Evers" Navigation." On page 192 we get his idea of great 
circle sailing as follows: 

" The solutiun of prablemE in great circle Bailing dependi 

Upon spherical trigonometry \ heuce to rightly comptrehcnd 
whole subiect, the student must be *e\\ vatsftQWi X"™;. w^vl'Cvs^ 
right angled and oblique spheric a.\ «Van^\^ft." 

ind ^m 

to H 

eat ^H 




When a Professor of Navigation says that spherical 
trigonometry is necessary to the prai:tice of great circle 
sailing, of course the general reader believes the statement. 
Bui there is no truth in the statement all the same. I have 
already stated that spherical trigonometry is never used at 
sea, and that few navigators understand the subject. But 
there are few navigators who hold Board of Trade certificates 
that could not calculate the first and other great circle 
courses, the position of the vertex and the last course on a 
great circle track in a few minutes. How then can it be 
done by spherical trigonometry, if the calculators do not 
understand it ; The answer is that it is done in every case 
hy plane trigonometry. If the reader will procure a work 
on spherical trigonometry and one on plane trigonometry, 
he will see that the sines, co-sines, tangents, secants, &c., 
in relation to the chord of an arc on aflat surface, are precisely 
the same as these quantities when taken in relation to the arc 
of a globular circle. In Evers' " Navigation," pages 227 and 
2z8, the "limitations of great circle sailing" are dealt with 
as follows : 

"The difficulty in making (he calculations for great circle 
sailing are sufficienf to deter the majority of practical men from 
adopting it. Again, as before intimated, many impediments, as 
islands, land, too high a latitude, &c., lies in its way. Several 
modilications to further extend its use, and mechanical methods 
already referred to, have been introduced. Theory and practice 
iu this case are often widely separated. The sailing master has 
to take advantage of winds and currents, and considers how he 
shall make the t/ukkest passage, which is not always the shortest. 
The best way to find out where the quickest passage can be 
made, is to lay down the great circle on a Mercator's chart, 
which has the winds and currents marked on it ; then with the 
straight lioe on the chart joining the two places, first compare 
the two paths, i.e., the Mercator's and great circle tracks, taking 
note of what currents of wind or water will assist the vessel ; 
whichever offers the passage is the best route, if not the 
shortest. Again, if by modifying the great circle track, by 
keeping to a lower latitude, the ship can be brought into currents 
in favour of the vessel, that will lie the best track. Although 
the greatest advantages of great circle sailing over the rhumb 
are obtained when saiHug in high latitudes, yet, in consequence 
of the danger arising from ice and icebergs floating from the 
North Pole into the North Atlantic, and from the South Pole 
into the South Pacific and South AUatiUc, naviKators are unable 
e these advantages." 


From page 193, Vol. I., of ** Naval Science," we extract 
the following : 

** In the passage from Panama to Australia, the rhumb track 
would entangle us in the Low Archipelago, in Dangerous 
Archipelago, and carry us into the very focus of coral reefs, 
atolls, lagoon islands, and sunken rocks, while the great circle 
route would take us clear of these dangers. On the other hand, 
the great circle track from Cape Horn to Cape of Good Hope 
(were there no other objections), would run the ship on one of 
the Sandwich group, while the rhumb course would carry her 
clear of such dangers." 

In practice, therefore, it is clear that the advantages of 
what is known as gfreat circle sailing, can seldom be secured, 
for the above reasons. 

But if a vessel starts on a great circle course and sails 
on it one day, how is her position found r By , plane 
triangxilation only, and in every case, as I shall now proceed 
to show. The following example of " finding the latitude " 
from a meridian altitude of the sun is taken from Bergen's 
"Navigation," page 67 : 


I. 1865, March dth, in longtitude 4° 30' E., the observed meridian 
altitude of the sun's lower limb was 24° 49' 10", bearing south, index error 
—9' 50", height of eye 1 1 feet ; required the latitude. 

d. h. m. s. 
Apparent time at ship, March ... 4 o o o 
Longitude in time, East - o 18 o 

Apparent time at Greenwich, \ 
fiAarcn*.. ... ..■ ***) 

Hours alnd decimals of hours 

3 23 42 o 


o / 

Longitude ... 4 30 E. 


60) 18 o 

Long, in time o 18 o 

O I fi 


Sun*8 declination at noon, 

March 3rd 

Correction ... 

Sun*s reduced declination 


6 41 28 S.— 

... - 22 44 

6 18 44 S- 

Diff. for one hour 57*55 
Hours, &c 23 7 


6,0) I36,3'935 

Observed altitude, si 


Dip., Table v.. for ii feet 

Sim's semi -diameter, page II., Naiit. Aim 
True altitude, sun's ceutre 

24 49 10 
— 9 50 


24 39 an 
- 3 16 


34 36 4 

— 1 57 

24 34 7 

or Table VIII, 

24 50 17 



' 1 

58 50 59 

.. ■ 

The sextant, or quadrant, is an instrument used to 
measure the altitude of any object above the surface of the 
earth. The former will measure angles up to 120"*- The 
latter instrument only measures up to go^^ience a quadrant 
Except in taking a lunar, where two heavenly bodies are at 
a greater angular distance than qo°, the quadrant will do as 
well as the sextant. 

Having previously adjusted the instrument, with the 
sextant bring down the image of the sun to the horizon at 
noon, and note the reading. In the example before us, the 
instrument had an error, which is allowed for. If the 
observer's eye were at water-level, there would be nothing 
to deduct for "height of eye " (erroneously styled "dip"). 
But as the eye is always above the water, and consequently a 
greater angle is obtained, an amount must be deducted to 
give th : reading that "would have been obtained wilh the eye at tealer 
levelt that being the datum line. Therefore, "height of eye" 
must be deducted. 

With the eye at water level at one angle and the sun at 
water level at the other, the line joining them is the base 
of the triangle — a straight line, of which we have already 
heard so much. But if water be convex, when the height 
of eye is deducted and the observation reduced to the datum 
line— the sea, then the eye and the sun are both at the 
surface of the convex water, consequently the base of the 
triangle is the arc of the circle between t\v& t«Q i^ints, and 
another aijowance must be maAe to tediice -0?^^^ 


circle to a straight line, in order to determine the true angle 
of the plane Iriangle. That this is not only never done, but 
that no work on Navigation ever published makes the 
slightest reference to the need for suoh a correction, and that 
all Iriangulation in Navigation \& plane, proves incontestably 
that the surface of the ocean is a plane surface. 

Having deducted height of eye, deduct the refraction 
(which raises the image of an object above its true position) 
if any exists, and the result is the true altitude. Then, if 
the lower limb of the sun be observed, add half ihe diameter 
so as to get the true altitude of sun's centre. Then a further 
fact requires to be noticed. The sun, when on the equator, 
that is, when it has no declination, makes a right angle with 
the ocean and land at all points on the equator. This fact 
and horizontal water are the main data in observations for 
finding the ship's position at sea. Deduct what has now 
been arrived at from the right angle (90"), the remainder is 
the sun's zenith distance. Then, if the sun had no declina- 
tion, the zenith distance would be the latitude; but as the 
sun in the present case is south of the equator and the ship 
in north latitude, the declination (sun's distance from the 
equator) has to be substracted to give the latitude. The 
declination, I may notice, is the reduced declination. That 
is, the declination reduced to the longitude of the ship. As 
the sun only makes a perfectly circular path about four times 
in a year, his path being eccentri:; at all other times ; it is 
required to know the variation of the declination, the 
eccentric above referred to being a spiral or corkscrew 
movement. If at Greenwich the declination is a given 
amount, and the variation for one hour be known, we only 
require to know how many hours the ship is east or west of 
Greenwich to know by how much to multiply the variation, 
to get the amount to be added if declination be increasing, : 1 
or subtracted if it be decreasing. I 

Much time could be saved by the use of an instrument 
pivoted vertically and supported by four legs with gimballs 
and weighted with lead to preserve the instrument vertical; 
with a sight to take the angle of the sun, that is, its differ- 
ence fi-om the vertical (90°), which, with the declination 
applied, would give the latitude in a few minutes. In all these 
quantities there is not the remotest reference to the rotundity 
of the earth, but the very opposite, as the datum line — flat 
water, is one of the main factors. 

In finding the longitude also, tVie sarcve ■m&'Otvoi q^ \-rv;^-»x- 
gulation is used. If the surface oi t\\e oceaLivX^e sgi.dci^'M, 
Zi^^ are no ruSes laid dawn for calculating on tKat basis , j 



The allowance for convexity is never mat 
be impossible to allow for it, as in clear weather the horizon 
is distant, while in thick weather it is very near. To reduce 
(he curved base of a spherical triangle to a straight line of a 
plane triangle is an impossibility, because the factors are 
unknon-n and in the nature of the case, never can be knoRii. 

The whole of navigation, therefore, furnishes strong 
evidence that the world is not the globe of astronomical 
speculation aad popular credulity, but a plane figure. 

The base of the triangle is always the straight line (hv- 
jected from the obser\-er ; and a straight line requires a flat 
or horizontal surface for its projection. 

It is commonly supposed that meridians of longitude 
south of the equator, converge to a common centre, as they 
do in north latitudes. If this were so, the allowances to be 
made for the longitudes being shorter as the south was 
approached would show the ship to be in her true position. 

Captain Woodside, of the American barkentine Echo, at 
Capetown, in June, i8q8, says that on 12th January, 1896, being 
without observation for two days and sailing a straight 
course at 250 miles a day, he expected to be about 100 miles 
to the southward, and a long way to the eastward of Gough 
Island, in latitude 40^ south ; but was startled to find the 
ship making straight for the island, and barely escaped ship- 
wreck. This proves that although the usual allowance for 
shorter longitudes in the south had been made, the ship's 
position was not known. There must, therefore, be some- 
thing wrong with the assumed length of degrees of longitude 
in the south. In the case above referred to, the ship was 
going to the eastward, and had an allowance in excess of 
the usual length of a degree of longitude been made, so as to 
correspond to what the length of degrees are at 40° south 
latitude, the ship's longitude would have been known. That 
it was not known proves that degrees are longer at 40° south 
latitude than at the same latitude north of the equator. 

In " South Sea Voyages," by Sir James C. Ross, page 
37, it is stated : 

And in a " Voyage towards the South Pole," by Captain 
James Weddell, we find the following : 

At noon in latitude &=," si' SovA^ ' 
44 miles more wesf iitg than the \o& \n toec ia-ja," 

&nant Wilkes informs us Wat": -* ■— — 

" In less than 18 hours he was 
reokoning in latitude 54° 20' South." 

The discrepancies in the above cases were attributed to 
•Currents, whether the course of the ship was westerly or easterly, 
^liich could not possibly be the case. These navigators, 
'believing the world to be globular could not imagine any 
J*ther way of accounting for the discrepancies between 
'ongitude by "dead reckoning," maliing allowance for the 
S^ipposed shorter longitudes, and that obtained by observa- 
tion. The explanation is .that the world diverges as the I 
South is approached, instead of converging, as the theorj 

It has also been shown under "Distances" pageji ofthis ' 
'Work, that at latitude 32° south, the distance round the world 
is about 23,000 statute miles ; at latitude 35^" south, the 
distance round is over 25,000 miles; and still further south, 
at latitude 37^° south, the distance is 2j,5oo miles, about. J 
These distances, obtained from ship's logs, cannot 
disputed ; and are altogether against the theory of theJ 
earth's rotundity. By purely practical data, apart from any? 
theory, it is shown that the world diverges to the south, an^ 
that, therefore, it cannot be a globe. 

^■P Sir Robert Ball, in his " Story of the Heavens, page 
^77. says ; 

I " We find that by observing the swing of a Pendulum afi 

I ditTcrent parts of the earth, we are enabled to determine tbftS 

shape of our globe." 

This is perhaps one of the greatest fallacies of the 
globular school, and when looked at without prejudice, is 
sheer nonsense. A Vibrating Pendulum on a globe with 
various movements would move with the globe, and could 
not by any possibility record the movement of the globe to 
which its supports were fastened. 

The following is from " Noad's Lectures on Chemistry," 
page 4 

" All the solid bodies with which we are surrounded ai 

ostaotly undergoing changes of bulli, corresponding to th, 

variations of temperature The expansioa and contrac- 




tion of metals by heat and cold form subjects of serious and 
careful attention to chronometer makers, as will appear by ^le 
following statements : — The length of the pendulum vibrating 
seconds, in vacuo, in the latitude of London 150" 31 ' 8" north) at 
the level of the sea, and at the temperature of dz'-' Fahr. has 
been ascertained with the greatest precision to be 39'i3Qa9 
inches. Now, as the metal of which it is composed is ctmslantly 
subject to variations of temperature it cannot but happen that 
its Itnglh is constantly vao^ng, and when it is further stated that 
if the ' bob ' be let down i-ioa of an inch, the clock will loae 
ten seconds in twenty-four hours ; that the elongation of I'looo 
of an inch will cause it to loose one second per day ;' and that » 
change of temperature equal to 30*^ Fahr. will alter its length 
i'5ooo part, and occasion an er/or in the rate of going of dgbt 
seconds per day, it will appear evident that some plan must be 
devised for obviating so serious an inconvenience." 

In the " Figure of the Earth,' 
e informed as follows ; 

by J. Von Gumpach, we 

" General Sabine himself," relates Captain Foster, " wu 
ished with two invariable pendubims ot precisely the same 
forcn and construction as those which had been employed b; 
Captain Kater and myself. Both pendulums were vuirated it 
all the stations, but FROM SOME CAUSF,, which Mr. Baik? 
was UNABLE TO EXPLAIN, the observations with one of 
them were SO DISCORDANT at South Shetland as to 

The English Mechanic of 23rd October, 1896, has the 
following', signed by a fellow of the Royal Astronomical 
Society : 

" In reply to ' Foucault's Pendulum ' (Query 89,090, p. igi), 

kthe plane of oscillation of the pendulum m latitude 5° would 
rotate in a retrograde direction at the rate of only i "307336" per 
hour; in other words, it would take w^iyj days, or about 
iij days, to complete its rotation. Hence, while it might 
ihiorelically be employed to show the earth's rotation, '" 

" Iconoclast," writing in the Earih Review, for A] 
June, 1897, says [inter alia) -. 

" The so-called pendulum proof of the world's assumed 
rotation was obliged to be renounced years ago as worthless, by 
who were in the best posfible position to judge, as these 
tew of numerous extracts show: 'The first position of these 
theorists is, that in a complete vacuum, beyond the sphere of 
the earth's atmosphere, a pendulum will continue to oscillate in 
one and the same original plane- On that suppusiliun their whoU 
theory is founded. In making this supposition the fact ia over- 
looked that there is no mbmtory motion unless through atmos. 
pheric resistance, or by force opposing impulse. Perpetual 
in rectilinear motion n\a-j \>e \maE,insd, as in the 
'uscular theory of Ugbl ; cuco,\a.^ moWou oia.-) \m ^iso V 


j\m flJisQ Vmj^^ 


In the planetary systems ; anil para^bolic and hyperbolic moDoi 
ta those of comets ; but vibration is artificial and of limited 
duration. No body in nature returns the same road it went, 
unless artificially constrained to do so. The supposition of a 
permanent vibratory motion, such as is presumed in the theory 
advanced is unfounded in fact and absurd in idea ; and the whole 
affair of this proclaimed discovery falls to the ground.' 

" T." 
"Liverpool Mercurj'," May 33rd. 

Again, in the same montb, appears the following ; 

" A scientific gentleman in Dundee recently tried the 
pendulum experiment, and concludes by saying, 'Tbat tbe 
pendulum is capable of showing the earth's motion, I regard 
as a gross delusion * " 

Again, another asserts. " He and others had made many 
pendulum experiments, and had discovered that the plane of 
vibration had nothing whatever to do with the meridian 
longitude, nor with the earth's motion " 

In many instances experiments have however not even 
shown a change in the plane of oscillation of the pendulum ; in 
others the alteration has been in the wrong direction ; in (act, 
in numerous instances, the rates and directions have been 
altogether opposite to that which tbe theory indicated ; a notable 
illustration ot this was given publicly bv the Kev. H. M. Jones, 
F.R.A.S., in 1851, at the Librar); Hall of the Manchester 
Athena:um, where tbe diurnal rotation of tbe earth was to be 
attempted to be demonstrated byadeiicalely adjusted Pendulum; 
after giving, at length, a. minute description of the arrangements 
and apparatus, we come to the admission, that the pendulum, on 
being released, travelled over a measured space in seven minufcj, 
whereas, according to the theory, it ought to have taken tiftecn 
minutes, or more, to accomplish tbe distance; and remember, 
this great difference was made without any al.owance being 

• made for the resistance of the air, which would be considerable. 
Anyone can verify this account by referring to the " MancheBtet 
Examiner Supplement" of May 34th, 1851. 
By referring to "The Figure of tbe Earth," by J. Von 
Gumpach, 2nd edit., 1862, on pp. 219 to 244, results will be seen 
of Sixty-seven experiments with the Peuduluni, made in every 
latitude North and Twenty-nine South of the Equator, by 
Captains Foster and Kayter, and General Sabine, all of whicD 

• are admitted to be absolutely worthle_'i6 for proving anything 
regarding the assumed motion of The World through space. 
If such testimony is not enough to make Pendulum -proof 
worshippers Ihink^ they must either be as bigoted as it is possible 
to conceive, or as thick in the cranium as their glube." 

The vibrations of a pendulum, therefore, whatever valu^l 
.hey may have in determining something as yet unknown, 
;an have nothing to do with the supposed motions of thel 
sarth, and must be relinquished by every thinking man. 




Sir David Brewster, in iiis " More Worlds than One," 

" It was not III) the form and size and motians of the earth 
were known and till the condition o( the other planets was found 
to be the same, that analogy compillcd us lo belUvc that THESE 
" The doctrine was maintained by almost all the distloguisbed 
astronomers and wrifers who have fiourished SINCE THETRUE 


" Under these circumstances the scientific world has been 
greatly surprised at the appearance of a work entitled ' Of a 
Plurality of Worlds ', the object of which, like that of Maxwell, is 
to prove that our earth is the only inhabited world in the universe, 
while its direct tendency is to ridicule and bring into contempt 
the grand discoveries in sidereal astronomy by which the list 
century has been distinguished." 

In "Sun, Moon, and Stars," by A. Gibeme, page lo, 
the following is found : 

" Just as our sun is a star, and stars are suns, so our earth 
or world is a planet, and planets are worlds." " The planets are 
worlds, more or less like the world we live in." 

And in his " History of the Conflict between Religion 
and Science," Dr. Draper tells us that : 

" If each of the countless myriads of stars was a sun sur. 
rounded by revolving globes, peopled with responsible beings like 
ourselves ; if we had fallen so easily and had been redeemed at 
so stupendous a price as the death of the Son of God, how was 
it with them ? Of them were there none who had fallen or might 
fall like us? Where, then, for them, could a Saviour be found?" 

^^^ IF the world be the globe of popular belief; IF the sun 
be a million and a half times the size of the earth-globe and 
about 100,000,000 miles distant from it; IF the stars are 
worlds and suns, distant many millions of miles and vastly 
larger than even our own sun ; IF the earth was a piece of 
molten rock shot off from the sun ; IF the moon was a piere 
fractured off from the earth; THEN it is a very proper 
question to ask, " Are these mighty globes in space 
Inhabited f" If so, are their inhabitants of a higher or lower 
order than the inhabitants of this globe ? 

Sir D. Brewster says that the plurality of worlds rests 
upon a few simple facts, and the foregoing are said to be 
dome of these facts ; but it was not till the form and size and 
motions of the earth were known tVvaxKNW-OGY compelled 
'Jje belief that the planets must be tnHabited tuotUs like ows. 


I have already shown that those who believe modem 
astronomy, and, by consequence, the plurality of worlds, are 
of all men most ignorant as to the shape of the world they 
live on ; that it has none of the terrific notions attributed to | 
it ; and that, unlike celestial bodies, it is a terrestial structure, 
a. stationary plane. 

The following quotation trom " A Treatise on Astro- 1 
nomy," by E. Henderson, L.L.D., F.R.A.S,, shows that the 
whole of this supposed analogy is based upon conjectures, 
and must therefore be rejected. 

I ana i 

"The great probability is that every star is a SUN fa? 
surpassing ours in magnitude and spleDdour ; tbey all shine b 

their own native light What a most powerful SU^ 

that little star Vega must be, when it ia 53,977 times larger thf ' 

our sun The stars thus being SUPPOSED to be sul 

it is EXTREMELY PROBABLE that they are the centres 
other systems of worlds, round which may revolve a numeroQ 
retinue of planets and satellites. Therefore, there must be ( 
plurality of sum, A PLURALITY OF WORLDS." 

The plurality of worlds, therefore, is based on assump^l 
tions so contrary to known possibilities, that the "gran^ 
idea" must be thrown into the waste-paper basket. 

The supposed great distance of the sun from the earth i) 
the main cause of the delusions of the learned as to the .' 
caJled worlds above us being inhabited. 

This distance is based on a fictitious idea, that of the 
revolution of the earth round the sun ; which I have already 
shown to be unconditionally false. The sun is a small body 
of light and near the earth, therefore all the star distances 
are wrong, their sizes and all other suppositions. 

The plurality of worlds is only the logical sequence of 
belief in the earth being a rapidly revolving globe. But this 
has been shown to be ridiculous in the extreme. Evidence, 
apart from any theory has been presented which entirely 
nullifies such an assumption, and renders it absurd; showing 
that such an unnatural idea has not a vestige of natural fact 
to support it. The grand doctrine of the plurality of worlds, 
therefore, like all the other grand doctrines of modern 
astronomy, must be consigned to oblivion. When it can be 
shown that this world is a globe and by what known 
principle the inhabitants can hang on to the swinging ball, 
like the house fly crawls along the ceiling, it will be quite 
time enough to talk about the plurality of worlds, 


tt nlf thM »%trimirtnKn have to *ay about theiiisdv«* 
„-.M MrfTACt, Ihny woald be about the wisest as well as t^^ 
riwffriMt mnn thai 'rvrr oxiftied. There are not many ma/^ 
min armmff thnm, but the quotation which follows is abo^^ 
thn tuoni immodm that can well be found. It is taken irtzx^ 
" I hit Hiury i/f the Hoavens," froir which we have quoted *■* 

" Antrdtioijiiirii hnvc /dii-n fl/i inventory o] each of the Piair -''?■ 
ihiv hnvt mmillnJ their Jiitum-ei, the thapet of their orbits, and 'J' 

/»»((("((« .1/ Ihut 'trbilii, their timca of revolution, and "h^^^j'k 
(^uKKR III nil llio UiTKc plnnfla their sizes and THEi;;^'^ 
W|f.|r;irrs," , , , , -IHi iwl even an easy matUr to weigh __"" 
„irl>< ••!• u-Ulrli wn .ti.ii.t, How, then, can we weigh a migt^»°'>' 

lilnii''i > . Hi I ii Ml tlie oartli, and distant from us by so g^ "? ^ 

llliiiilx.i ..I . .1 t miUia, 7>m(v (Aw is rt bold problem. l^T^^' 

iif man have proved sufficient ^^____'? 


ttlUVllAIIDN," "A riH'l-rulo placed at a distance oF 
inllf* i»it>loii>U nil hmkIv »( a >rcoud, aiid it is surely a delic^^ 
•kitlllvVfltii'lll (.• WitiiNn Ikt ^.h( k/ a PUhiI tmd feet confident l^ 
•>' r»*v ifwiM Ihm tin irtM Aitiv xntrrndfH %atv our rtsall." 

t'\\\* tt«l»lli*ttHl nMiltT may gape wth wonder wh^^" 
tHM \\\9*v uml !iuch-likf> absunliti(>s, but we shall s^^^ 
, wtHv h»'W ^Ms»t th* »>rTW7( arc^ which have mtmded inK^^ 

tttV V'AK'Atl«tK«4t!i t4 th«? \vW <n<m. t^t 6rst. a5 to die basis C7^ 
»>tv wV'W v^t ihvv»(- ■•tn'iHVM^l «\-htev«m«nts of scientifi*^ 
SvK- " '^ *iA»0 l\» BE FOUNDED OV 

V^ ^ ^ '' ^ ' IvVCs wtitch i« have proved 10 

»ta^ ;x ^»t tW ws* mo, A MYTH. 

\ - ,■ -v»», " ^>ir Place vmaag lo- 

lf%M<y y W J li ^ Ti>>fc W k. ^k» «H^ ««K!t «*» «f 




that is heavier than air does. When such errors are 
unblushingly admitted and the figures based on the law of 
gravitation, the resuhs arrived at must be as mythical as we 
have seen the law of gravitation to be. 

T. G. Ferguson, in the Earth Review for September, 
1894, says: 

" Let us now glance at their theories about the Planets. 

Saturn's mean distance from the sun. as given In the 

' Story of the Heavens,' is 884,000,000 miles, and the diameter 
71,000 miles, ftofessor Lockyer gives its distance as 890,000,000 
miles ; a difference of 4,000,000 miles. Professor Olmstead 
gives Saturn's distance from the sun as 890,000,000 miles, and 
the diameter 79.000 miles. Others conid be (jtiotcd equally at 

Were it necessary we could fill a good many pages with 
the errors of this exact science; enough has been said to 
prove to the thinking man that the wise men we have quoted 
know no more about the planets, their sizes, weights, and 
distances than did Hodge when, after having listened to a 
very learned discourse about the starry heavens, he was 
asked what he thought ot the marvellous fact that light had 
taken from creation to travel from some of the fixed stars to 
the earth, he exclaimed, " Law, Sir, what a big lie it do be, to 

^^^^The term " parallel " signifies equidistant, hence th^' 
II &elf-evidenl truth that "parallel lines never meet." Because 
they are at equal distance from each other, they can never 
meet, no matter how far they may be prolonged. If lines do 
meet when prolonged, it is because they are not paralltsl 
or equidistant from each other. ITie above is so well-known 
that it eeems at first sight a waste of words to re-state it, 
but the following quotations will .show the necessity of 
emphasing even self-evident truths. 

" Some Unrecognised Laws of Nature," by I. Singer and 
L. H. Berens, page 11, contains the following : 

" We suspend two plumb lines at a convenient distance and 
then measure their distances from each other at both ends. The 
most deUcate measurement at preeeTitpo9&'ftAe'Nai{v&&<t'(ii<^'c^a'«^& 
—as Im as (his is possible by duecXobserjs.'iAOTi— '*>a»-^t^»^^ 



that parsillel &nc3 if '^ ~:r me«t. we 

wonM draw tbe inein: l ■::ib lines, if 

iodrfnitcly extended ■-> ...i.u-ioQ m.'uld 

seem obvious and inevujL>it . >ft i:nr ^n^iicai: .ji to-dav toows it 
to be false. But his linowleii^ b out due to dirett obsern&ctD, 
bat to his a.cqnaEntence with the fact that the earth b ronDcl. and 
that plumb bnes at any port of the earth arc at right angles to 
the horiion-" 

I have not read one work on Astronomy which does not 
require on enormous amount of credulity if the reader is to 
accept as truth whatever is presented to him. but the above 
quotation will equal anything anywhere for the amount of 
credulity it pre-supposes the reader to be possessed of By 
direct observation and experiment it is proved that parallel 
lines can never meet, being equidistant from each other. Yet 
the student after having proved the truth of the proposition, 
knows it to be false '. '. I Parallel lines can never meet, they are parallel, no matter what the figure of the 
world may be. The same work, on page 13, states : 

" To the man who conceived the earth as a flat expanse 
Dothing could be more coaclusivE than that plumb lines were 

strictly parallel But notwithstanding such direct and 

positive evidence, the stndentof to-day disbelieves tbisconcln^oD, 
and that not because he has any direct evidence to the 
contrary, but because it conflicts with the now established fact 
that our earth is a sphere. Hb evidence is not due to direct 
observation, but is circumstantial depending on a coacateoatioD 
of inferences." 

It would be difficult to conceive anything more opposed 
to reason and common-sense than the foregoing. One fact 
is done to death by what is said to be another fact, which is 
manifestly impossible, and one marvels how educated men 
can lend themselves to support what their own experinieat 
condemns. The same work, continuing on page 15, says: 

'• The reason why • parallel lices never meet ' is because we 
conceive them so and because as soon as lines approach towards 
each other we no longer call them parallel." 

"This conclusion will enable us to understand why of two 
such conclusions — as : (i) plumb lines are parallel ; (2) pliiBib» 
lines are convergent, — we accept the latter, though based 01 

Now, the most amateur draughtsman knows that parallel 
lines are not parallel, " because we conceive them so," but^ 
because they are equidistant from eath ox.\\&t, a.Tii, v\\.«,re(brep- 



bors of the work from which I quote have actually to 
mentally destroy a fact and to deny self-evident truth in order 
to support what depends on a "concatenation of inferences." 
Xhe "long chain of inferences" has to be accepted as truth 
ELS against the result of actual observation ! If plumb lines 
are parallel, how can they be convergent ? Truly, this globe 
t'heory depends for its support on the stultification of 
common-sense, the free run of the imagination and the 
dethronement of the reasoning powers. According to the 
globular hypothesis, parallel perpendiculars are impossible, 
yet any builder will admit that a house is a mass of parallel 

" Mensuration," by T. Baker, C.E., page i, gives the 
definition of parallel lines as : 

^^^L " FaraUel lines are always at the saine distance, and never ' 

^^^H meet when prolonged." 

^^"The authors of "Some Unrecogni.sed Laws of Nature " 
"have gone to strange lengths to support the fiction of a globe 
world. It never occurred to them that their experiment 
proving plumb lines to be parallel, proved also that the 
world is not a sphere but a plane ! 


In projecting railways on a globe, the datum line would 
be the arc of a circle corresponding to the latitude of the 
place. That the datum line for railway projections is always 
a horizontal line, proves that the general configuration of 
the world is horizontal. To support the globe theory, thi 
gentlemen of the observatories should call upon the surveyor 
to prove that he allows the necessary amount for " curvature." 
But this is what the learned men dare not do, as it is well- 
known that the allowance for the supposed curvature is nevei 
made. 'In the session of the British Parliament for 1862, 
Order No. 44 states ; 

"That the section be drawn to fie same HORIZONTA] 
scale as the plan, and to a vertical scale of not le£S than 
to every one hundred feet, and shall show the Burface of the 
ground marked on the plan, the intended level of the proposed 
work, the height of every embankment, and the detjth of evtr-j 
ittiag, and a DATUM H0^1ZO\i"\ K\- VX'Y.^ i«:VwV ^VaW >w. 
throughout the vhoie length uj tHc voA , , - " _ 


he ^5 

■^In the Birmingham Weekly Mercury, of 15th February, 
1^890, " Surveyor " writes as follows : 

I " 'An Engineer of thirty years standing" wrote to aMagarine 

B in 1874 quoting the following sentence as the resdt of liis 

H experience in the construclion of railways, more especial); :— 

I ' I am (horntighly acquainted witti the theory and practice of dvtl 

H engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in 

K the theory of surveying according to (he prescribed rules, yet it 

H is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurenieiilE 

^P are incapable of any practical illustration. Ail our locomotives are 

V '' designed to run on what may be regarded aa TRUE LEVELS 

H or FLATS. There are, of course, parlial inclines or gradieols 

H here and there, but they are always accurately defined andltwrf 

H be carefully traversed. But anything approaching to eight inches In 

B the mile, increasing as the square of the distance, COULD NOT 


■ CONSTRUCTED. Taking one station with another all ovei 
H England and Scotland, it may be stated that all the piaiformi »" 

■ ON THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL. The distance between 
H the Eastern and Western coasts of England may tie set down as 
H 300 miles. If the prescribed curi'alure was indeed asrepreaenlad, 
H the central stations at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon 
H three miles higher than a chord drawn from the two extrcmiaes, 
H If such was the case there is not a driver or stoker within the 
H Kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train . . 1 . 

■ We can only laugh at those of your readers who seriously giw 
H lis credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains roDDd 
I spherical curves Horizontal curves on levels are dangecous 
B enough, vertical curves would be a thousand times worse, and 
H with our rolling stock constructed as at present physically Im^ 
I sible. There are several other reasons lahy such locomotioH im iw" 


I This important evidence by a practical man, may be 
B-supplemented by the following from W. Winckler, M.l.C-E., 
Kin the Earth Review for October, 1893 : 

■ "As an engineer of many years standing, 1 say thatlnis 
K absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. Noenginfi^ 
H would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected 
K many miles of railways and many more of canals and tie allw- 

■ ance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. Tlus 

■ allowance for curvaturt mcaiis this— that it is 8" for the first mile 
B of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of theto 

■ lance in miles; thus a small navigable canal tor boats, H? 3" 
B miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowanceforcurvatnt' 
I of 6oo feet. Think of that and Iken pleasi credit emginurs as f»* 
I bting quiU: such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. I mnS, 
I however, state that college astronomers have made the student 

■ engineer to think that in his method of levelling what is kDO*|' 

■ as the "backsight" cancels atl■^j CMtvaX.ij^e by hia "fc^;B«^t'i 

■ and so on. It is only a theoT-y, B.n4\la.?.Waii'SHi«t^ " " 

■ eur method of levelling cancel ttia aW^a.'aQw. qS 



allowance, we sha'nt quarrel with them — it does no damage to 
our projects when we get into practice, but u>e no more Ihihk of 
allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, tban of 
wasting our time trying to square the circle." 

Astronomers know full wet! that it is no use appealing 
to the engineers, as their testimony is dead against the 
globular theory, although many of them believe in it all 
the same; but I never met one who said that he ever made 
the allowance said to be necessary for projecting railways 
on the surface of "our tiny globe." In "Theoretical 
^^igtronomy," page 46, the author tells us that : 

^^^^fe "Mr. J. C. Bourne, in his ma^ificent work called 'The 

^^^^g History of the Great Western Railway ' . . . . which is more 

^^^f than 118 miles long . . , . ' (/le xsilwU line with the exception of the 

inclined planes, iiioji be regarded pnicliciilly as k!)el.' " 

One hundred and eighteen miles of LEVEL railway, 
and yet the surface on which it is projected a globe f 
Impossible. It cannot be. 

Early in 1898 I met Mr. Hughes, chief officer of the 
steamer " City of Lincoln." This gentleman told me he had 
projected thousands of miles of level railway in South 
America, and never heard of any allowance for curvature 
being made On one occasion he surveyed over one thousand 
miles of railway which was a perfect straight line all the 
way. It is well known that in the Argentine Republic and 
other parts of South America, there are railways thousands 
of miles long without curve or gradient. In the " Cruise of 
the Falcon," by that intrepid traveller and navigator, E. F. 
Knight, it is stated in Vol. 2, pages i and 2 : 

" From Tucuman to Cordova we were carried by the 
Government railway." "There are no curves on the way, the 
rails being carried in ONE PERFECTLY STRAIGHT LINE 


^^^^ In projecting railways, the world is acknowledged to be 
a plane, and if it were a globe the rules of projection have 
yet to be discovered. Level railways prove a level world, 
to the utter confusion of the globular school of impractical 
men with high salaries and little brains. 


Rivers run DOWN to the sea because of the inclinatioii 
of their beds. Rising at an altitude above sea-level, in 
some cases thousands of feet above the sea, they follow the 
easiest route to their level — the sea. The "Parana" and 
" Paraguay " in South America are navigable for over 
miles, and their waters run the same way until they find 
their level of stability, where the sea tides begin. But if 
the world be a globe, the " Ama2on " in South America 
that flows always in an easterly direction, would sometimes 
be running uphill and sometimes down, according to the 
\ movement of the globe. Then the " Congo " in West 
I Africa, that always pursues a westerly rourse to the sea, 
I 1 would in the same manner be running alternately up an<3 
[^M^tiown, When that point of the globe exactly between them 
was up, they would both be running up, although in opposite 
directions; and when the globe took half a turn, they would 
both be running down ! We know from practical experiment 
that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility 
remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal — whatever 
term may be used to express the idea. It is therefore quite 
out of the range of possibility that rivers could do as they 
would have to do on a globe. 


Sir D. Brewster speaks of a work, " the direct tendency 
of which was to ridicule and bring into contempt the grand 
discoveries in sidereal astronomy by which the last century 
has been distinguished." 

No wonder that supposed discoveries, which are really 

only baseless assumptions, should call forth volumes to 

bring contempt and ridicule upon the impossible theories by 

! which the last century speculators made themselves ridl- 

I culous. 

The " Birmingham Daily Mail," of 25th Novembetj 
I 1S93, states that : 

I " The astronomers arranged for a grand display of fireworVs 

I on Thursday night, the 23rd inst,, but the ungrateful fireworks 

I did not appear. The showmen now take refuge in the clouds 

I which shrouded the sky and say the fireworks were there only 

I they could not be seen It is believed that throughout 

I the nigbt we were caieeY\ng tiiTou^h a storm of red-hot 

b meteorites, the fragments ot a comet sKia.a'nisA Vj * ^Jemi^sdat^ 

^^H^ planet some forty years ago ^^^H 


Hen newspapers ridicule the thing it must he \ 
iird, for they generally side with the professional men, 

■ "Morning Leader," of aist November, i8g2, has the 


We have no desire to unduly alarm our readers, but our 
duty to the public compels us to announce that to-night a 
colliiion may he expected between the earth and a comet. The notice 
we give is somewhat Bhort, so short indeed that if the worst 
comes to the worst, some distant readers may have barely 
learned the fact before the shock gives it an emphatic confirma. 
tion. The Rev. M. Baxter has somehow or other over-loooked 
this noteworthy prediction, an oversight possibly accounted for 
by his feverish desire to discover some unfortunate individual 
who may be publicly described as " The Beast" without 

running foul of the law of libel 

Just at present it is perhaps risky to speak disrespectfully 
of comets, but it is undeniable that they are chiefly distinguished 
by their eccentricity. They resemble in no small degree 
political parties. They consist of a definite point or nucleus, 
with a remarkably nebulous tail preceding or following the 
nucleus. The tail precedes the nucleus when the comet has 
passed the perihelion and is receding from the sun. and it follows 
it when the sun is approached. That is to say, it is always to 
the front in a retreat and in the rear in an attack. As with the 
humhie members of political parties, its distinguishing feature 
is prudence. Nor does the resemblance end here, for 
astronomers assure ua that comets' tails ace ,noted for their 
extreme tenuity. Stars which the slightest fog completely 
obscures shine through millions (?) of miles of their transparent 
material. Id the same way it is easy to see through the motives 
and tactics of the political hanger-on. The nucleus is really 
the only part of a comet which need be noticed by practical 
men. The vaporous tails have frequently come within the 
earth's attraction (?) and have been absorbed into its atmosphere, 
just as the Lit>eral Unionists have been "merged" into the 
Tory party. Whether the effect of the absorption of a comet's 
tail into our atmosphere has been salubrious or deleterious, 
or even if the event has had any perceptible influence at all, 
is only a matter of speculation among the learned. This 
extremely negative result resembles the action of homcEOpathic 
medicines upon the human frame — at least, as described by 
allopaths. The moral seems to be that the world will be wise 
if it carefully avoids the nucleus to-night and collides simply 
with the tall. " Run into something cheap," shouted the 
economical peer to his coachman when his horses bolted down 

Mankind has received comets in various moods. Sometimes 
they have been hailed with rapturous welcome. They have 
been supposed to herald a superior wine vintage. The produce 
of 1811 and of 185S was specially announced as "comet wines," 
and topers declared that it was very good. Qw t-tvft <AKtt. ^lOsA, 
tiese eccentric heavenly bocUe5\iavebeeYi te:?,'Kc&Ri-w\'*v\s.-».'w«&. 

MiWrf terror. They were inc\adc4 Ui a. ^ei'j ^iTOiaWL^■w«.■^^^ 


prayer in the year 1456. The Turks bad just 

CoDstantinople, and it was feared tliat tbey would soon ovettmi 
Europe. A comet was hovering about at the timfe, and the pioui 
of the' day added to the Ave Maria the following supplicadon: 
" Lord save us from the devil, the Turk, and the comet," It is 
strange that at the end of the nineteenth centurv we ^onld be 
threatened by the same three influences. Tte ftret seems 
destined to be always with us, the second will haunt us until the 
Eastern Question is really settled, and the third threatens la 
mend or end us to-night. 
"Reynold's Newspaper," of 27th November, 1892, bas 
ktfae following : 

"A Dalziel Telegram, dated Philadelphia, November 84, says 
Professor Synder, Instructor of Astronomy in the High Schuol 
here, states that the earth last night collided with a comet in tie 
Andromeda group and shattered it to pieces. This theory is mi^ 
to receive confirmation by news from Illinois and other Slates, 
where their was a great fall of meteors. These are siif-posal lo be 
""" "' s of the defunct comet." 

The " Natal Mercury," of 30th August, i8g8, says : 

" To shift the axis of the earth from the poles to the equalor 
M. Fouche, who has been working for years at the problem. Bays 
is perfectly possible. It is only necessary to accumulate a sufficient 
quantity of material to one point of the equator, and the earth 
will ' turn turtle,' and continue its rotation at right angles lo its 
present turning, while climatic, zoological, and social changes 
would ensue. The question is, how much material ? M. Fouche 
answers 65 sextillions of tons. With all the resources of steam, the 
operation could not occupy less than two million years." 


R. Russell, in his " Wonders of t'lie Sun, Moon, and 
Stars," tells us, on page 86, that : 

" The modern theory of the solar system maintains that the 
sun is comparatively motionless in the centre," 

Our own senses testify against this delusion. No one 
ever yet felt or saw the earth careering through space at 
the terrific rates it is credited with, but every one who is not 
blind can see the sun move. But the matter can be tested. 
It may be known for certain whether the sun moves or not. 
Take a school globe and place a stile on the semicircle that 
holds it in position. Cause the globe to rotate against a 
lamp on a table, and you will find that the shadow left on 
the globe is always parallel to the equator, at whatever 
angle you may incline the globe. Further, let the stile be 
-f suincient length to allow the shadow to fall on to a. "-" 


surface, moving the globe towards the lamp, and the shadow 
will be a straight line. If, therefore, the shadow left on the 
earth by the sun be a straight line, then undoubtedly the 
sun is stationary. Drive a stake into the ground in such a 
position as to expose it to the sun for the greater part of a 
day — the whole day if possible. Mark the end of the 
shadow every quarter of an hour, and you vstiU find that the 
marks form part of an elongated curve, clearly proving that 
the sun moves over a stationary earth. 


R. A. Proctor, in his work " The Sun,'* says that : 

'* The determination of the sun's distance is not only an 
important problem of general astronomy, but it may be regarded as 

In R. Russell's " Story of the Solar System," we are 

informed that : 

" The mean distance of the earth from the sun may be taken 
to be about 93 million miles, and this distance is employed by 
astronomers as the unit by which most other long celestial dis- 
tances are reckoned." 

Seeing then, that everything depends on the knowledge 
of the sun's distance from the earth, it is no wonder that it 
is regarded as one of the prime problems in astronomy. 
Surely this will be right ; if not, all the rest will be wrong. 
Let us see what the wise men say. Let us see with what 
concurrence of ** precise " calculations they agree as to thiis 
admittedly very important matter. 

Sir R. Ball tells us that " the spirit of astronomical 

I have already quoted R. Russell as stating that the 
distance of the sun from the earth is 93 million miles. 

In the " History of the Conflict between Religion and 

Sci^riCife," by J. W. Draper, pages 173 and 174 inform us as 

follows on this important matter : 

** In the time of Copernicus it was supposed that the sun^s 
distance could not exceed live million miles, and indeed there 
^ were many who thought that estimate very extravagant. From a 
"review of the observations of Tycho Brahe, Kepler, however, 
concluded that the error was actually in the opposite direction, 
'' and that the estimate must be raised to at least 13 million. In 
1670 Cassini showed that these numbers were altogether incon- 
sistent with the facts, and gave as his conclusion 85 million. The 
transit of Venus over the face oi tVie svro. '^WJx^ '>>^ ^.'^^^^^^."^A\i^^^v 
foreseen and its great value in iVie ^o\>3i\!\otiol\}d\^\NXsA^s^^^ 


proposition in astronomy appreciated. Witb commendable al 
rity various governments contributed their assistance in maklnt; 
observations, so that in Europe there were 50 stations, in Ada 6, 
in America 17." 

" But on the discussion of the observa.tiaQB made at tbe 
various stations, it was found that THERE WAS NOT THE 
celebrated mathematician, Encke, therefore revised them in 
1832/4 ^i^d came to the conclusiou that the sun's harixontll 
parallax, that is, the angle under which the semi-diameter of the 
earth IS SEEN FROM THE SUN, is 8.576/1000"; thiagave« 
the distance 95,274,000 miles. Subsequently the observations irate 
reconsidered by Hansen, WHO GAVE AS THEIR RESULT 
91,659,000. Airy & Stone by another method, made it 91,400,000." 

"Theoretical Astronomy " informs us to the following 

Eiited the distance of the sun from lis to be 
;r reckoned it to be 12,376,800 miles ; Ric- 

I like 

^H setti 

" Copernicii 
3,391,200 miles; 

ciola 27,360,000; Newton said it did not matter whether » 
reckoned it 28 or 54 miUions, for he said that cither would do W. 
Benjamin Martin in his Introduction tu the Newtonion Philo- 
sophy .... says that its distance is between 81 and 82 millions 
of miles .... Thomas Dilwortb says 93,726,900 tnites ; Mr. Hitid 
has stated positively that it is 95,298,260 .... GiUis & Gould 
say that it is more than q6 millions, and Mayer more tinn 

Iti the face of these alarming figures it would be * 
wonder if astronomical enquiry were satisfied with approxi- 
mate, or any other- RESULTS, for results are just what 
cannot be arrived at. 

Regiments of figures are paraded with all the learned 
jargon for which science is famous, but one might aS 
well look at the changing clouds in the sky and seek 
for certainty there, as to expect to get it from the pro- 
pounders of modern astronomy. The authoress of "Sun. 
Moon, and Stars," however, comes to the rescue of the 
learned and tells us that : 

" It is only of late years that the matter has been cWj 

settled. And indeed, it was found quite lately that a mistake oi 

nearly 3,000,000 miles had been made, notwithstanding aB ih" 

cate and all the attention given .... the distance of the lUn 

from the earth is no liiss than iibaiit 91,000,000 miles.'' 

Following after a certainty in modern astronoiny, Is 

like following a phantom. Sir K. Ball, in his " Story of the 

Heavens," page 28. completely destroys this "clearly 

settled" matter, for he says (and he ought to know) ; 

"The actual distance of the sun from the eaitli Ut A 


That saving clause "about" is very handy indeed. 

As the sun, according to "science" may be anything 
from three to one hundred and four million miles away, there is 
I^enty of " space" to choose from. It is lilie the showman 
and the child. You pay your money — for various astrono- 
mical works— and you take your choice as to what distance 
you wish the sun to be. If you are a modest person, go in 
for a few millions: but if you wish to be "very scientific' 
and to be " mathematically certain " of your figures, then I 
advise you to make your choice somewhere about a hundred 
millions. You will at least have plenty of" space " to retreat 
into, should the next calculation be against the figures of 
your choice. You can always add a few millions to "keep 
up with the times," or take off as many as may be required 
to adjust the distance to the "very latest" accurate column 
of figures. 

Talk about ridicule, the whole of modern astronomy is 
like a farcical comedy — full of surprises. One never knows 
what monstrous or ludicrous absurdity may come forth next. 
You must not apply the ordinary rules of common-sense to 
astronomical guesswork. No, the thing would fall to pieces 
if you did. But is there no means of testing these ever- 
changing never.stable speculations and bringing them to 
the scrutiny of the hard logic of fact r Indeed there is. The 
distance of the sun can be measured with much precision, 
the same way as a tree or a house, or church steeple is 
measured, by plane triangulation. It is the principle on 
which a house is built, a table made or a man-of-war con- 
structed It is used alike by the engineer and the carpenter, i 
Lot us put the statements of the learned as to the immense ' 
distance of the sun from the earth — anywhere between three 
and one hundred and four million miles — to this test. 

When the sun is on the equator and thus has no declina- 
tion, the angle it makes with the earth and sea at all points 
on that circle is a right angle. At an angular distance of 45° 
from the equator, north or south, the distance of the base 
line from the observer to the equator is of necessity the same 
as the sun's vertical distance from the earth's equator. That 
is to say, in any right-angled triangle where the angle at the 
apex of the triangle is 45°, the other angle must of necessity 
be the same; as these two angles in any such triangle are 
equal to the right angle, viz,, 90''. The angles being equal 
the sides are of necessity equal ; therefore the base line is 
equal to the vertical. This principle holds good whether the 
triangle represents a field ploUed b-j xt* ^Nxr^t-iw, ■■;&& 



measurement oftheroofof a house erected by tlie buiWer; 

the distance a ship is from the land, known as the "four 

point bearing " ; or the distance of a heavenly body measured 

with a sextant, the minutes and seconds of which correspond 

to miles and sixtieths of miles reckoned on the earth's 

surface. Whether the measurement is vertical as in the case 

1 of a housetop, church spire, or the sun in the heavens; or 

Lhorizontal as in the case of the ship's distance from the shore, 

■or the land plotted by the surveyor, the same principle holds 

"good. It is the principle on whichCookmeasuredtheheight ■ 

fa tree, as the following quotation tells us. In "Cook's 

Voyages," by A. Kippis, page 54, it is said that : 

" One of the trees at the height of six feet above the ground, 
was igft. Sin. in girt. Lieutenant Cook having a quadrant willi 
him, measured its height from the root to the first branch, and 
found it to be 89 feet." 

The following triangle illustrates this j 

i first branch 1 
ig the samei I 

The reader will notice that the angle at the f 
B one of 45", and the angle at the observer being 1 
I the 6as£ line and vertical must be the same length AND 
Therefore if we can get a position 45" north or south of the 
equator when the sun has no declination, the distance from 
our place of observation to the equator (the base of th^ 
triangle), will be exactly equal to the distance of the sun 
from the earth's equator (the vertical). 




Let S E O be a right angled triangle, right angled at E ; S 
the sun, E the equator, and O an observer at 45° north latitude. 

From the figure it is evident that 45® is the angular 
distance of the sun at 45° north, and no other angle can be 
got in actual practice (allowing, of course, for such corrections 
as height of eye, semi diameter, &c.) ; so that the distance 
on. the surface of the earth to the equator — from O to E, is 
the same as from the equator to the sun in the heavens — 
E to S. Multiplying 45 by 60 (60 geographical miles=i de- 
gree), we get 2,700 geographical miles as the distance from 
O to E and thus from E to S. THE SUN IS THERE- 
If the Sun were 96,000,000 miles distant from the Earth, 
an observer at 45° N or S latitude would be that distance 
from the Equator ! ! ! 

To make it perfectly clear to the navigator^ let the 
following horizontal triangle represent the usual way the 
ship's distance fi-om the shore is found, known as the four 
point bearing, to which reference has already been made : 



Let X be the position of Beachy Head, bearing N W 
by compass from a vessel bound down channel; A the 
position of the vessel when the headland bears N W, and 
B her position when the headland bears N by compass. It 
is required to determine the vessel's distance from Beacfcy 
Head, when the ship is at the position marked B. As the 
navigator will well understand, the vessel must be put on 
the course corresponding to the four point bearing, and as 
Beachy Head bears N W the course is West, and when the 
land is abeam and bears X, the distance the ship has sailed 
from the first position to the second one, is the same distance 
the ship is from the land at the point B. 

If the navigator will apply this principle to the sun's 
distance, he will at once see that the distance of the sun 
from the earth cannot be either more or less than the 
distance of 45^ of latitude from the equator, viz , 2,700 
nautical miles. 

It may be objected that this measurement is on the 
assumption that the waters of the world are horizontal. This 
I have produced abundant evidence to prove is the case, 
but even if the earth were the globe of astronomical 
imagination, the following diagram will show that the 
distance is in no wise altered, and would be the same if the 
observer could get an observation on a globular surface. 

Let O be the place of observation at 45° north 01 
latitude, and S the sun when it has no declination ; then the 
angular distance of the sun is less than 45°, on account of the 
^epresston of (he obser.v r's posth'on, THEREFORE the angle 
O S r, must be added to the observation, being the allowance 
for CURVATURE to be made, which brings the observation 
to 45°. The distance on a globe, therefore, would be the 
same as on a flat surface, provided the observer could get an 
observation of the sun's angular distance on a globe, which I 
hn-ve already shown to be impossible. IT IS AS CERTAIN AS 
AVe challenge the whole scientific world to disprove this 


^* When we " read up " current science on the size of the 
sun, we shall iind it as ridiculous and as far from the truth 
as the suns distance has been shown to be. 

Sir Robert Ball, in his " Story of the Heavens," page 
26, says that : 

" The diameter of the orb of day .... is 865,000 miles." 
This is enlarged upon by R. Russell, who tells us that : 

" The sun's diameter is 882,000 miles." 
A. Gibeme, in "Sun, Moon, and Stars," considerably 
lessens the value of the figures, for she tells us that : 

" The diameter of the sun is no Uss than 850,000 miles." 

Then G. F. Chambers, in his "Story of the Solar 
System," comes to the rescue with the true diameter and 
says : 

■'The TRUE diameter of the sun is 866,000 miles." 

Let the reader observe that the differences of the sun's 
diameter, as given to us by professionals is no less than 
32,000 miles, and let him decide as to which diameter he 

The sun is always somewhere between the tropics of 
Cancer and Capricorn, a distance admitted to be less than 
3,000 miles ; how then can the sun if it be so many thousand 
miles in diameter, squeeze itself into a space of about 3,000 


I, 120 

jU}lti% only ■ How can a locomotive seven feet wide run on 
t, two feet gauge of rails f Can a camel ride on the back of 
H mouse, or a whale rush down the throat of a herring f 
. But look at the distance, say the professors. We have 
jllready done that and not one of the wise men we have so 
Blten challenged, has ever attempted to refute the principle 
JM which we measure the sun's distance. 
These tall figures of the sun's supposed diameter must 
be relegated to oblivion with as scant courtesy and as little 
ceremony as the sun's distance had to be thrown aside. Fact 

■ compels us to get rid of these absurd notions and to spread 

^^■Abrnad the truth concerning them. What then is the 
^^^Hdiamoter of the orb of day ? Thirty-two miles, I reply. How 
^^^Hb that obtained r By the same practical and non-theoretical 
^^Knanner as his distance was obtained. If the navigator 
^^^neglects to apply the sun's semi-diameter to his observation 
^^^Kt sea, he is i6 nautical miles (nearly) out in calculating the 
^^^Tposition his ship is in. A minute of arc on the sextant 
I. represents a nautical mile, and if the semi-diameter be 16 

miles, the diameter is of couse 32 miles. And as measured 
by the sextant, the sun's diameter is 32 minutes of arc, that ■ 
r in 32 nautical miles in diameter. Let him disprove this who 
If ever disproof is attempted, it will be a literary 
uriosity, well worth framing. 


In the " Story of the Heavens," to which I have so often 
referred, we find that the cardinal doctrine of astronomy is 
^jd to be : 

That the sun is no more than a star, and the stars no less 

And on page 52 of the same work we are told that : 

" Every one of the thousands of stars that can be seen with 
the unaided eye is enormously larger than our satellite." 

In " A Treatise on Astronomy," by E. Henderson, it is 
nted that : 

"The probability is that every star is a sun far surpassing 

in magnitude and splendour Vega is 53,577 limes 

larger than our sun." 


The reader need not be alarmed at these statements, for 
there is not one atom of truth in thevty THERE IS NOT A 
KNOWN TO ASTRONOMERS. It is all speculation and 
gfuesswork, , but very poor speculation and miserably bad 
gfuesswork. They are wrong every time and always. The 
sun's distance is the datum for measuring the distances and 
sizes of all the heavenly bodies, and as it is hopelessly wrong, 
as we have shown, ALL THE SIZES AND DISTANCES 


Sir Robert Ball, in his inimitable fairy tale already 
referred to (entitled the " Story of the Heavens "), says that : 

** We now know the distances of a few of the stars, perhaps 
20 or 30, with more or less accuracy, but of the distances of the 

great majority we are still ignorant The observations 

for the determination of stellar parallax are founded on the 
familiar tijith that the earth revolves around the sun»'^ 

The s.tatement , that **we now know the distances" is 
unconditionally false. They do not know any one distance. 
Neither can they know, because the speculation is founded 
on a myth — the earth's supposed revolution round the sun, 
which I have shown to be impossible. But let us proceed, 
and see with what marvellous ** accuracy " the distances are 

On pages 414 to 421 of the work referred to, we find 

** Bessel concluded that the distance (61 Cygni) was about 
60 billion miles. Struve thought it could not be more thdn 
4a billions of miles." . 

A lit/le diJBFerence of 20,000,000,000,000 miles. How 
very accurate^ to be sure. 

Sir liobert then calmly informs us that : 

*' We shall presently show that we believe Struve was right, 
yet it does not necessarily follow that Bessel was wrong/' 

What splendid logic, and what marvellous r^^.^^\sx\s% 
faculties ! He then continues : 

" As the distance of 61 Cygni \s z^o \A\\\ons. oi \sSis^" 

So that after all the putting- forth of mighty intellectual 

power it seeros that Bes.sel was wrong, becausi- Sir Robert 

says that the star is 43 billion mile-s. away, which is the 

I distance given by Siruve. And then follows an audacious 


"By the aid of our KNOWLEDGE OF STAK 
DISTANCES, combined with an assumed velocity of 30 inilM 
per second, we can make Ihe attempt to peer back into Ihe 
remote past." 

No, Sir Robert, you have not yet shown that you know 
the slightest of the present in your own profession, so we 
cannot take you as a guide to enable us to "peer back" 
into the past. 

But how are star distances measured ? Mr. Laing shall 
tell us. In his " Modern Science and Modern Thought," 
page 8, he says : 

; distance of the earth from the sun being 93 million 
ellipse nearly circular ; it follows that in 

mid-winter, in round nnmhers, it 
the spot where it was at mid- 

million miles dintanl ft' 

This is all supposition, which I have already shown 

does not contain a word of truth, and consequently whatever 

[ is built upon this foundation is worthless. Now it is evident 

' to every thinking man that if the earth has travelled such 

an enormous distance in an ellipse so as to make the base 

line 186 million miles, all the stars will necessarily have 

altered in relative position, so that the matter can be easily 

tested. Now, what says Mr. Laing : 

I ■' What difference in the beat ing of the fixed stars is caased 

\ by traversing this enormous base ? The answer is, fn t)a\mm*<* 

fc majorily 0! cases NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL," 

In the time of Tycho Brahe it was said that the earth 
revolved around the sun, but he argued that if the earth 
revolved around the sun, the relative position of the stars 
would change very much, and the matter must, in the 
nature of the case, be easily detected. Accordinglyi 
experiments were tried at intervals of six months, and th^ 
resuU-showed that the stars were in exactly the same position 
as they had occupied six months before, thus provinS 
that the earth does not move at all. The "explanation" 
Mr. Laing gives is nullified by his own further statement. 
He tells us that: 

" Their distance is so vastly greater than i85 million miles, 
that a change of basis to this extent makes no change perceptibb 
to the most refined ioetruments in their bearings as aeenfcwi ft* 


The distance of the stars is an absolutely unknown 
quantity to the gentlemen of the observatories, as I have 
shown, so that this flimsy argument amounts to nothing. 
Besides this, the movement ot the earth, if such ever took 
place, would be easily detected. But that such has never 
been observed, and that the relative position of the stars 
has not changed, proves that the earth is a fixture. 

Mr. Laing goes on to refute his own statement of the 
case by stating that : 

" The perfection of modern instruments is suchy that A CHANGE 
parallax, as it is called, of any fixed star, WOULD CERTAINLY 

By the most powerful and finely adjusted of modern 
instruments no change has ever been observed, so that 
Mr. Laing's laboured statement must be relegated to the 
limbo of conjectural absurdity. 

Mr. Laing's case against the Bible would be the most 
telling that could be made out, if his statements were within 
a million miles of the truth, but they are absolutely without 
the slightest foundation and must be thrown into the 
** scientific " waste-paper basket. 

Another writer who uses his not inconsiderable ability 
in the same direction is Dr. Draper, author of a work I have 
already quoted from, '* The History of the Conflict between 
Religion and Science." On the subject of star distances, he 
says, page 156 : 

*' Considering that the movement of the earth does not 
sensibly affect the apparent position of the stars, he (Aristarchus 
inferred that they are incomparably more distant from us than 
the sun .... He saw that the earth is of absolutely insignificant 
size when compared with the stellar universe. He saw too, that 
there is nothing above us but space and stars ^ 

What a marvellous vision this man must have had ! 
Had it only been stated what Planet this adventurer 
chartered to take his trip *' above us " to see what there was 
there, the fairy tale would have been complete. 



R. Russell tells us in his "Wonders of the Sun, Mooiii 
Eftnd Stars," pa^es t6 and 17, that : 

■'The nearer the sud gets to the Pole Star the earlier it rieM, 
the higher it reaches at noon, and the later it sets ; and the 
further it gets from the Pole Star the later it rises, the lower il is 
at noon, and the earlier it sets. This appareniiy mdepindent motitt 
of the sun therefore, seems to account for longer and shorter daj-s 
and the whole phenomena of the seasons; but why the sunlageas 
described, or why it moves northerly and southerly at altemale 
periods, there is no apparent evidence." 

On the supposition that the world is a globe rotating 
against the sun, and revolving round that luminary, it is 
impossible to account for what Mr, Russell calls the lagging 
movement of the sun. But on a flat surface like the world 
is known to be, there is no assumption needed to account 
for it. As I have shown, the earth is a stretched-out 
structure, which diverges from the central north in all 
directions towards the south. The equator, being midway 
between the north centre and the southern circumference, 
divides the course of the sun into north and south declina- 
tion. The longest circle round the world which the sun 
makes, is when it has reached its greatest southern declina- 
tion. Gradually going northwards ths circle is contracted. 
In about three months after the southern extremity of its 
path has been reached, the sun makes a circle round tte 
equator. Still pursuing a northerly course as it goes round 
and above the world, in another three months the greatest 
northern declination is reached, when the sun again beginsto 
go towards the south. In north latitudes, when the sun if 
going north, it rises earlier each day,is higher at noon and sets 
later; while in southern latitudes at the same time, the sun 
as a matter of course rises later, reaches a lesser altitude 
at noon and sets earlier. In northern latitudes during the 
southern summer, say from September to December, the sun 
rises later each day, is lower at noon and sets earlier; while 
in the south he rises earlier, reaches a higher altitude at 
noon, and sets later each day. This movement round the 
earth daily is the cause of the alternations of day and night 1 
while his northerly and southerly courses produce the 
seasons. When the sun is south of the equator it is summer 
in the south and winter in the north; and vice versa. The 
fact of the alternation of the seasons flatly contradicts the 
Newtonian deiusion that the earth revolves in an orbil rt 

the sun. It is said that summer is caused by the earth being 
nearest the sun, and winter by its being farthest from the 
sun. But if the reader will follow the argument in any text 
book he will see that according to the theory, when the earth 
is nearest the sun there must be summer in both northern 
and southern latitudes ; and in like manner when it is 
farthest from the sun, it must be winter all over the earth at 
the same time, because the whole of the globe-earth would 
then be farthest from the sun ! ! ! In short, it is impossible 
to account for the recurrence of the seasons on the assumption 
that the earth is globular and that it revolves in an orbit 
round the sun. 


Pearson* s Weekly of the 29th December, 1894, says: 

" Evidently we have not got at the bottom of the matter yet. 
In August, 1890, the C Manouvre Fleet signalled with searchlights 
to Colliers, 70 miles away .... The information comes from Mr. 
F. T. Jane, the Artist who was on board at the time," 

According to the Astronomers^ these vessels should have been 
^y200 feet below the horizon^ allowing for a height of 40 feet on 
the signalling vessel, and 26 feet on the Colliers ! ! ! 

Harper's Weekly of 20th October, 1894, contains parti- 
culars of an experiment made by the Signal Corps of the 
U.S. Army, with the Glassford flashlight or heliograph. 

The signal stations were Mount Uncompahgre, in South 
Western Colorado, and Mount Ellen in Southern Utah ; the 
former 14,418 feet above sea level, the latter 11,410 feet ; the 
plateau lying between the two stations is 7,000 feet higher 
than the sea. According to the calculated rate of curvation 
of a spherical body of 25,000 miles in circumference, a 
straight line running at right angles with the perpendicuhr 
Sit the transmitting station. Mount Uncompahgre, would run 
as a tangent from the line of curvation so that in the distance 
of 183 miles, the curvation would place Mount Ellen down- 
ward irova the tangent line, below the line of vision nearly 3f 
vtiks! and yet the receiving station was seen on a line with 
the eye from Mount Uncompahgre, on a line coincident with 
the " tangent** line ! ! ! 




In Robinson's "New Navigation and Surveying," page 

25, it is stated : 

" The spirit-level is used to determine a horizontal 

line. A horizontal line is at right angles to the vertical. It is a 
level line." 

And on page 33 the following occurs : 

" To adjust a theodolite measure very carefully the distance 
between two stations, and set the instrument half way between 
them. Now bring the level near to one of the stations, level it 
carefully and sight the rod. Note the number on the rod, say 6 
leet, and have the rod man go to the other station and place his 
target on the rod. just 6 feet. When the telescope is turned upon 
it the horizontal spider line ought to just coincide with the target, 
and will if the instrument is level or in perfect adjustment." 

This proves that the whole of the line from the 
extremities at either side of the instrument, passing through 
the telescope is a level or straight line, impossible on a 
globe. And the further fact that in surveying, no allowance 
is made for the supposed curvature of the earth, demonstrates 
that the earth is a plane. The surveyor is, in many cases, 
deluded by the speculations of the learned. They tell him 
that because he takes his sights midway between two 
stations, the allowance for curvature is made. But we have 
shown fi-om a text-book that the line is a level or straight 
line, so that the learned are all wrong. And if a section of 
a' globe be drawn and the instrument shown at various equal 
distances, to get a continuous straight linCy the tnstrunient 
would have to be taken up off the globe into space. 

That in all surveys no allowance is made for curvature, 
which would be a necessity on a globe ; that a horizontal 
line is in every case the datum line, the same line being 
continuous throughout the whole length of the work ; and that 
the theodolite cuts a line at equal altitudes on either side 
of it, which altitude is the same as that of the instrument, 
clearly proves, to those who will accept proof when it is 
furnished, that the world is a plane and not a globe. 


" Lux '* of the 13th January, 1894, has the following: 

** What a lovely thing the word • science * is ! There was an 
old lady who, in times oi lrou\)\e aivd^\.^> ^Vn^.'^s found com- 


fort and peace in * that blessed word, Mesopotamia *. But that 
^ed person is not in it with the old women who find a solace in 
that blessed word * science '. The latest thing in * science * is the 
* Interstellar Medium '. Space is not void, we are to believe as 
commanded by • science ', but it is filled with a kind of stuff called 
ether. It conveys lights from the stars at, say,. the rate of 186,300 
miles per second. Light comes in w^ves. The waves have a mean 
value of 50,000 to the inch. This light comes 60,000,000,000,000,000 
waves in one second of time. Some stars, according to Herschel, 
take 309,000 years to send their light to our earth 1 Go on, work 
it out I I When found, make a note of it, and then say * science * 
doesn't want about 1,000 times more faith than Christianity, if 
yOu can I " 

In " Paul PetofF/' by F. Marion Crawford, on page 11 71 
it is stated : 

" We talk more nonsense about science than would fill many 
volumes : because, though we devote so much time to the pursuit 
of knowledge, nevertheless the amount of knowledge actually 
acquired, beyond all possibility of contradiction, is ludicrously 
small as compared with the energy expended in the pursuit of it, 
and the noise made over its attainment. Science lays many eggs, 
but few are hatched. Science boasts much, but accomplishes 
little; is vainglorious, puffed up, and uncharitable; desires to 
be considered the root of all civilization, and the seed of all 
good, whereas it is the heart that civilises, and never the head." 

** Sigma," in the " English Mechanic " for 5th October, 
1894, supplements the above as follows : 

"We have any quantity of hypotheses thrust upon us as dis- . 
coveries, which are merely false knowledge that later science will 
have to unlearn. As a matter of fact, the fashionable notions that 
are paraded as * science ' stand only because their advocates shut 
their eyes to realities, make assertions with little or no fact to 
start from, ignore the facts which do not suit them, refuse to meet 
objections, and ignore any really scientific (that is provable) 
explanations which do not agree with the specialistic facts." 

" Science " is a very inclusive term, as the foregoing 
extracts show. It is the cloak under which thousands of 
humbugs flourish and grow great, " science,'^ however, 
sometimes exposes '* science," as the following from 
" Modern Science and Modern Thought," page 43, shows : 

"In this state of things the moon is supposed to have been 
thrown off from the earth .... Now these conclusions may be 
true or not as regards phases of the earth's life prior to the Silurian 
period, from which downwards GEOLOGY SHOWS UNMIS- 

When Geology mocks at Astrotvorcv^ > ^^ \sv^.^ V.'aM^ "^^ 
two combatants to fight it out, fcx lYve^ ^x^^^^xX^^^iJ^'^^- 


The " English Mechanic" of 4th January, 1889, says: 

"The whole of astronomical science so far as the stellar 
universe is concerned is founded upon a false basis. This arises 
from the fact that the construction of the heavens in respect to 
the apparent arrangements of the stars in space is always 
erroneous, and yet yiccessarily all astronomy is founded upon this 
suppositious situation of the stars.'^ 

Commenting on " Scientific Dogmatism," the " Daily 
News '* of 5th December, 1893, says : 

" Mr. Tyndall resigned in 1887 the Professorship at the Royal 

Institution which he had held for more than thirty years 

He never had any doubt about anything, from Home Rule to 
spontaneous generation, from the composition of dust to the origin 
of things . . . But while Professor Tyndall, the brillant lecturer, 
the luminous expositor, the interpid climber, the pugnacious con- 
troversialist, the genial and amiable companion, was in many 
respects an interesting personage, no part of his character would 
repay study so well as the scientific dogmatism in which it was 
all steeped. Dr. Arnold protested half a century ago in his enter- 
taining, if not very practical, notes on Thucydides, against what, 
as a philological student, he discerned to be a tendency of the 
times. * It is not to be endured, he said, that scepticism should 
run at once into dogmatism, and that we should be reauired to 
doubt with as little discrimination as we were iormerly called 
upon to believe.' Dr. Arnold was of course referring directly and 
immediately to the tampering of commentators with the text of 
the Greek historian. But the symptom which he observed has 
spread into other spheres, and for the old tyranny of the Church 
there has been substituted the despotism of the laboratory. The 
* delight of dealing with certainties ' described by an accomplished 
man of letters, who made an hasty plunge into the * Principia', is 
a high form of mental enjoyment. But it is rather a dangerous 
guide through the maze of conflicting probabilities, from which 
even the sacred College of Science has not yet succeeded in 
delivering the human race .... 

Mr. Balfour wrote a book which is not nearly so well known 
as it ought to be. The ' Defence of Philosophic Doubt ' is dry and 
unattractive in form. But it is acute and ingenious in substance. 
It would be a more agreeable work if it were written in literary 
English. It would be a more candid one if it mentioned the name 
of David Hume. It is, notwithstanding these drawbacks, a value- 
able antidote to the pretensions of modern science. In it Mr. 
Balfour, one of the few living Englishmen with a real aptitude for 
philosophy, turns against the exaggerated claims of science 
the argument formerly employed with so nmch vigour against 
the exaggerated claims of theology. • It is useless,' he 
says in effect, *to tell me that your conclusionsare true 
because they are universally accepted. What is the ignorant 
impression of the unthinking multitude really worth ?'..,, 
Mr. Balfour is fond of paradox, and he may press his theory 
too far. But at least he deserves credit for pointing out that the 
ialkUibUity of science rests ou uo swt^x iouudation than any otb^ 


form of orthodox opinion. The greatest names in scientific history 
cannot be cited to support the doctrine that a knowledge of 
physics, however accurate and extensive, entitles its possessor to 
• lay down the law on final causes and the origin of things. In his 
famous address at Belfast nearly twenty years ago, Professor 
Tyndall declared that matter contained the power and potency 
ot every form of life. If this phrase was more than empty rhetoric 
it implied that Professor Tyndall knew how the world came into 
existence, and how life began. Mr. Darwin, the greatest man of 
science since Newton, if not since Aristotle, put forward no such 
assumption. In humble and dignified language he explained that 
his marvellous generalisations with reference to the origin of 
species and the decent of man began, as they ended, with a living 
creature. He traced man to the marine ascidian. The marioe 
ascidian he did not pretend to trace." 


It IS commonly taught that the tides are caused by lunar 
attraction. Sir Robert Ball tells us that : 

" The moon attracts the solid body of the earth with greater 
intensity than it attracts the water at the other side which lies 
more distant from it. The earth is thus drawn away from the 
water, which accordingly exhibits a high tide as well on the side 
of the earth away from the moon as on that toward the moon. 
The low tides occupy the intermediate positions." 

No one who has the use of all his faculties and who 
dares to use them, need be told that this flimsy apology for 
what the learned cannot account for, contradicts itself. How 
could this attraction take place without disintegrating the 
globe r Besides, as the law of gravitation is said to operate 
according to the amount of matter of which each body 
consists, the statements of astronomers that the moon is 
2,160 miles in diameter and the earth 8,000 miles in diameter 
flatly contradict their own other statements about the moon 
causing tides. How can the smaller body attract the larger r 
We are informed in ** Sun, Moon, and Stars," pages 160 to 
163, that : 

" The earth, it is true, attracts the moon. So also the moon 
attracts the earth ; THOUGH THE FAR GREATER WEIGHT 

How anyone can accept the current theory in face of the 
abovei is somewhat puzzling. Sir R, B^U s^ys the moon 


attracts the solid body of the earth ; but the work from which 
I have just quoted states that : 

** Her attraction (the moon's) draws up the yielding waters 
•of the ocean in a vast wave." 

Both these assertions cannot be true. Which is ? I say 
neither. And the astronomers* own theory of attraction also 
answers " neither/' when it is taken into consideration that 
the moon cannot attract the earth, being a much smaller 

But if the moon lifted up the waters, it is evident that 
near the land, the water would be drawu away and Uw^ 
instead of high tide, caused. Again, the velocity and path 
of the moon are uniform, and it follows that if she exerted 
any influence on the earth, that influence could only be a 
uniform influence. But the tides are not uniform. At Port 
Natal the rise and fall is about six feet, while at Beira, about 
600 miles up the coast, the rise and fall is 26 feet. This 
eflFectually settles the matter that the moon has no influence 
on the tides. 

How then are tides caused r The learned being as far 
from the truth in this as in every matter which we have 
brought to the test of the hard logic of facts, what is the 
truth of the matter ? 

The Leicester Daily Post^ of 25th August, 1892, says : 

" M. Bouquet de la Grye, an eminent hydrographical 
Engineer, has after long yearsof study calculated the atmospheric 
expansions and depressions which coincide with spring and neap 
tides. There have been cases in which air was moved in waves 
of 133 yards high, and in places where the barometrical pressure 
was seven-tentns ot an inch, ot six and a half miles. Near the upper 
surface of the earth's atmosphere condensations and dilations of 
this magnitude are trequent. The human nervous system may be 
said to register these air waves. We are only aware that they do so 
by the discomfort which we feel. The earth also registers them 
and to its very centre. The incandescent and fluid matter under 
the earth's crust acts in concert with the air and sea at the full of the 
moon. In 1889 a German Scientist, Dr. Rebeur Pachwitz, thought 
he noticed at Wilhelmshaven and Potsdam earth oscillations 
corresponding with the course of the moon. He wrote to the 
observatory at Tenerifle asking for observations to be there 
in December, 1890 and April, 1891, which would be propitious times 
for them. From these observations and others simultamously made »». 
the sandy plains round Berlin, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT 
OR THE ATMOSPHERE. The movements, common to them 
all, may be likened to the chest in breathing. — Paris Correspondent 
Weekly Dispatch." 

This is the answer to the question. Tides are caused by 
the gentle and gradual rise and fall of the earth on the bosom 
of the mighty deep. In inland lakes, there are no tides ; 
which also proves that the moon cannot attract either the 
earth or water to cause tides. But the fact that the basin of 
the lake is on the earth which rests on the waters of the deep, 
shows that no tides are possible, as the w^aters of the lakes 
together with the earth rise and fall, and thus the tides at 
the coast are caused ; while there are no tides on waters 
unconnected with the sea. 

The "Yellow Frigate," by Jas. Grant, page 189, states : 

•* St. Mungo's Tide. This double flow is somewhat remark- 
able, for when the tide appears full it suddenly falls fifteen inches, 
and then returns with greater force, until it attains a much higher 

The following is from " Omoo, a Narrative of Adventures 
in the South Seas," by H. Melville : 

*' The Newtonian theory of the Tides does not hold good at 
Tahiti, where, throughout the year, the waters uniformly com- 
mence ebbing at noon and midnight, and flow about sunset and 
daybreak. Hence the term * Toorerar-Po ' is used alike to express 
highwater and midnight." 

The question may now be asked, what has the moon to 
do with the tides r The moon is the TIMEKEEPER for the 
tides, nothing more. Th3 *' phase " of the moon tells what 
kind of a tide may be expected, but she does not and cannot 
"attract " either the solid body of the earth or the waters. 
What Zetetics have stated for many years past, is now seen 
to be true, but " science *' is slow to take advantage of the 


In the preceding pages it has been clearly shown that 
the Copernican or Newtonian System of Astronomy is an 
absurd composition of meaningless expressions, false ideas, 
and mechanical impossibilities. In our consideration of the 
subject — and we have touched upon all the important items 
— we have not found one statement which does not require 
a supposition to start with ; not a smg\^i^.cX^\^'s>\i'^'^xs.^c^'i'^'^^ 
from the published books on iTae ?>uV^<^cX >«TvX\fe^^'^ "^^^^ 


profession ; and contradictions have been found in all the 

most important component parts of the "science," which 
effectually refute the system and destroy its claims. Hence, 
the whole hypothesis must be rejected as a snare and a 
delusion, without a vestige of fact or possibility to support 
its bold, unwarranted, and Infidel conclusions. 

I shall now proceed to demonstrate that when Ihe 
I fictions of the system are received as facts, the logical 
I necessity arises for disposing of the Bible as a collection of 
1 old wives' fables. I shall also quote from the Scriptures 
J themselves, to prove conclusively that NATURE and the 
} BIBLE are in perfect agreement. 

In Paine's " Age of Reason," it is stated that ; 

" The two beliefs — modern astronomy and the Bible — canaM 
be held together in the same mind; he who (ftiiiAi he believes 
both has thought very little of either." 

However much many well-meaning Christians may 
affect to ignore this statement, it is nevertheless true. The 
system of astronomy at present in vogue is the very opposite 
of the facts of nature, as we have abundantly demonstrated. 
The facts of nature are in perfect harmony with the Bible, 
as we shall presently see. 

The most casual and superficial reader of the Bible 
must see that it claims to be of Divine Origin. He must 
further see that the Author of the Bible claims to be the 
Builder of the Universe. And he must still further see that 
the world is described in this Book which claims to be from 
God as being built upon the waters of the mighty deep, 
which foundations are not to be discovered by man j that 
the Sun, Moon, and Stars are inferior to the world we liv* 
on, and that they move above the earth, which is at rest. 

How, then, can a thinking person affect to believe the 
Bible and a system which teaches the very opposite of the 
teaching of that Volume. The logical conclusion is that if 
the statements of modern astroiiomy be true, the Bible 
cannot be what it claims to be— THE WORD OF GOD. 
We have already shown that there is not so much as one 
true statement in all modern astronomy concerning this 
world — that the whole thing is a fake and a fable, an 
ingenious hoax. It is, therefore, not incumbent on any one 
to believe the imposture ; but all lovers of truth should join 
hands in exposing the thing. We shall now see that the 
extravagant and false ideas of the scientific world have led 
the more daring intellects to despise Bible teaching, and, 
some cases, to reject the \de& o^ xVe eKARtance qftM 

personal God at all. But we shall also show that sucb^ 
conclusions are merely the logical sequence of belief in the 
impossible theories of the "learned." Two opposite things 
cannot both be true, and the " scieTitists" ihinking that 
modern astronomy is true, have only been acting 
logical manner by rejecting the teaching of the Bible. 

R. A. Proctor, in his work entitled " Our Place Amongf 
Infinities " page 3, unblushingly states : 

■■ To speak in plain terms, oj/nf as science is concerned, THB 
are also all the attributes which religion recognises in such aj 

A Durban gentleman told the writer some time < 

And a "reverend" gentleman told me in April, 

" The Bible is only inspired when it speaks on matters of the 
soul; when it speaks on physical matters, such as astronomical 

But if the first two statements are only the logical | 
sequence of believing the fictions of modern science to be I 
facts, what shall we say about the third ? It is much more 
inconsistent than anything that the avowed enemies of the 
Gospel could devise. They believe science and therefore 
disbelieve the Bible, which is contrary to science. But to 
believe boih to be correct as some do, or to say that when 
the Bible speaks of physical facts if is only the opinions of 
the writers and not inspired, is to refute any statement made 
as to inspiration in any other direction. 

Obviously, if the Bible be not true in matters scientiflcj 
it cannot possibly be true on any other matter. It is either 
true in part and true altogether, or false in part and false 
altogether. Between modern astronomy and the Bible,, 
there is not so much as an inch of standing ground ; if the 
one be true the other and opposite statement is false. 

But there are a great many Christians who do not seem 
able to arrive at any logical conclusion in the matter. They 
take for granted that what science teaches is true, because 
many " learned " men believe it. But when brought face 
to face with the fact that Bible and astronomical teaching 
are contrary the one to the other, aivd ^i&ta.^?!^ ^aea Ni^^»^^*^ 


■ ' I 

^^■science, therefore they disbelieve the Bible ; they at mKS^ 
■■ begin to say that the statements in the Bible concerning the 
world are merely " poetic " or " symbolic " and by no means 
lilerai, But before arriving at such a conclusion it must, in 
all fairness, be shown that those passages which teach that 
the world is at rest, and the sun, moon, and stars are moving 
over and around it, are consistent with other passages 
which are, admittedly, not symbolical, but literal beyond all 
controversy. I may instance Joshua commanding the sun 
to stand still, which, if the reference to its movement in 
Psalm ig be symbolical and nol literal, brings to light a, 
serious discrepancy, for the Scriptures say that the sun did 
stand still. Now, according to modern astronomy, the sun 
never does anything but stand still. Does it not, therefore, 
seem very absurd that a General of a large army should be 
so ignorant about such a simple matter, of which his 
God had already spoken, and yet be the leader of a people 
called out of Egypt by God ; not knowing whether the sun 
or the world moved ; and must not the Scripture which 
distinctly stales that the sun was made to stand still, be 
very absurd, if the sun always stands still • 

Then again, Christ is said to have been shown all the 
kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. This is ' 
admittedly literal. But if the passages which refer to the 
world standing stiU be symbolical, and the world be moving, 
turning upside down in fact, it would have been quite impos- 
sible for Christ to have seen all the kingdoms of the world in 
a moment, as some of them would be iar below the horizon, 
on the other side ot the revolving ball. 

Many such statements could be produced, showing the 
absurdity of the symbolical idea, and clearly indicating that 
the question in its literalness must be faced, whatever the 
issues be. 

If the Christian thinks that the Scriptures are symbolical 
in this matter, the infidel, who searches the volume in order 
to find discrepancies, knows that it is very literal ; and com. 
paring one passage with another very soon discovers that, 
from Genesis to Revelation, there is a marvellous con- 
sistency of teaching that the world is at rest and that sun, 
moon, and stars move around and above it- He therefore 
concludes that, inasmuch as Bible teaching is opposed to 
what he is pleased to denominate the "ascertained facts of 
science," the Bible must be untrue in matters scientific, AND 
Ajid if the reader will just apply the ordinary rules of 


nmon-sense, he will see that if the Bible be not true in 
ne things, it cannot be true in any, and, therefore, must 
rejected in tola. If, for example, the world be the globe 
popular belief, it is impossible that there ever could have 
in a universal flood. For such a thing to have happened, 
vould be required to blot out the whole universe, to stop 
i revolution of the globe and to bring confusion and ruin 
the whole of the " solar system." But the Bible does 
ch that there was a univer-sal deluge, and that is 
Tiittedly literal. Not only so, but Christ refers to the 
uge. If, therefore, no deluge ever happened, it would be 
■y inconsistent to ask any one to believe in Christ, who 
tified that that great catastrophe actually took place. In 
■ present enquiry, therefore, we must leave the whims and 
;judices of those who say they believe the Bible, and yet 
:ept as truth the teaching oi modern astronomy, which is 
; direct opposite of, and gives the lie to, Bible teaching ; 
3 see where the acceptation of the globular theory has led 
n to. If it were consistent with Bible teaching, it would 
turally lead them to the Bible and the Christ of the Bible; 
.nconsistent with the facts of the Bible, it could ouly lead 
■n to doubt and deny that Book. 

In Lucifer, of 23rd December, E.M. 287 {i.e., 1887 A.D.), 
i following occurs : 

"We date from the first of January, 1601, This era is called 
the Era of Man(E. M.) to distioiuish it from the theological epoch 
that proceded it. Id that epoch the earth was supposed to be flat, 
tbe SUB was its attendent light revolving about it. Above was 
Kfceaven, where God ruled supreme over all potentates and powers, 
■*'-■ IS the kingdom of the Devil, Hell. So taught the Bible, 

me the NEW ASTRONOMY. It demonstrated that the 
a globe revolving about the sun ; that the stars are worlds 
jnd suns ; that there is no ■ up ' and -down' in space, VANISHED 
tsrth became the home of man. And when the modern cosmogony 
lame, the Bible and the Church as infalhble oracles had to go, for 
■■they had taught that regarding (he universe WHICH WAS NOW 

In Reynolds' Newspaper, of 14th August, 189J, under the 
oding of" Democratic World," the following appeared : 

■■ We are trembling on the eve of a discovery which may 
revolutionise the whojethoughtof the world. The almost universal 
tpinion of scientific men is that the Planet Mars is inhabited by 
■ liugs, like or superior to ourselves. Already they have discovered 
eat canals cut on its surface in geometrical form, which can 
ily be the work of reasoning creatures. They have seen its 
iwfielda, and it only requires a telescope a little stronger than 


those already In existance to reveal the mystery as to whether 
eeDtient beings exist on thai planet. IF it be found Ibat thisia 
SOCIETY OF CLERGYMAN ; the devil has become a mytli. 
IF Mars is inhabited, the irresistable deduction will be that all 
the other planets are inhabited. This will put an end to the fable 
prompted by the vanity of humanity that the Son of God came 
00 earth and suffered for creatures WHO ARE THE LINEAL 
DESCENDENTS OF MONKEYS. It is not to be supposed that 
the Hebrew carpenter, Jesus, went about as a kind of theosophical 
missionary to all the planets in the solar system, re-incarnate, aoi 
sufTering tor the sins of various pigmies or giants, as the case may 
be, who may dwell there. The astronomers would do well to make 
haste to reveal to us the magnificent secret which the world 
impatiently awaits." 

Professor W. B. Carpenter, in his paper in the Modern 
■Review for October, 1880, protests that science has excluded 
fGod from Nature. He says ; 

■' While, however, the idea of Government by a God IS NOW 
DOMAIN OF SCIENCE, the notion of Government by law hw 
taken its place, not only in popular thought, but in the minds of 
many who claim the right to lead it ; and it is the validity of this 
notion which I have now to call in question , , . PHILOSOPHV 

" The advanced philosophy of the present times goes still 
farther, asserting thai THERE IS NO ROOM FOR A GOD 

These conclusions are the inevitable result of believing 
\ the current theories regarding the evolution of the world in 
opposition to Bible statements, that it is the product, not of 
evolution, but of special creation. Thin is the conclusion to 
which the world ia fast hastening— NO ROOM FOR GOD 
IN NATURE. And when natural truth is rejected to keep 
pace with unnatural and fictitious science, no marvel if 
spiritual truths as revealed to man by his Creator, are 
rejected also. The one is the natural outcome of the other, 
S. Laing, in his " Modern Science and Modern Thought," 
ells us that : 

"Atteinpls to tiarmoniae (he Gospels and prove the iospira- 
tion of writings which contain manifest errors and contradictions, 
have gone the way of Buckland'a proof of a universal deluge, and 
of Hugh Miller's attempt to reconcile Noah's Ark and the Genesis 
account of creation WITH THE FACTS OF GEOLOGY AND 

The words " the facts of geology and astronomy " reveatl 
the whole of the case for the infidel. He supposes that hisl 
assumptions are true. He aasunrs that his assertions arel 
facts and THEREFORE the Bible, which tells against hi»| 
so-calted " facts " must be untrue. 

I have already shown that astronomy has not yetl 
chronicled one fact regarding this world; that the "facts"! 
of astronomy regarding the enormous size, and by conse^ 
quence the immense distance of the stars, are fictitiou^l 
every one ; that, in fact, modern astronomical " science " 
untrue altogether and unworthy the credence of any maOtJ 
"scientific" world against the Bible HAS ABSOLUTELY! 

On pages 178 and 179 of Draper's "Religion andJ 
Science," it is said : 

" In his ■ Eveniiifi Conversations ' he (Giordano Bruno) had 
insisted that the Scriptures were never intended to teach science, 
but morals only ; a.nd that they cannot be received as of aoy 
authority on astronomical and physical subjects. Especially must 
we reject the view they reveal to lis of the constitution of the 
world, that the earth is a flat surface, supported on pilllars : that 
the sky is a firmament— the floor of heaven. On the contrary we 
must believe that the universe is infinite, and that it is filled with 
self-luminous and opaque worlds, many of them inhabited." 

Bruno, like many now, was afraid of incurring thewrath 
of the priesthood by stating that the Bible was untrue, so 
he made a kind of compromise, as the above extract shows. 
But his argument does not require a .-econd reading to show 
that if the science of the Bible be untrue, its moral teaching 
I! mus t be equally so. Mr. Laing further tells us : 

^^^^^ " Now it is absolutely certain that portions of the Bible, and 

^^^^^V these important portions relating to the creation of the world and 

^^^B of men are not true and therefore not inspired. IT IS CERTAIN 






^^B TH 

^^H DE 

^^B AN 

^^H FII 

^^H TO 


jid on pages 278 and 279 he adds : 

as certain as that two and two miike four, THAT 

JUN 1 


EN, ^m 

This "absolute certainly " is the creation of the ifnagi' 

fflation, for thers is not one FACT in nature that modern 

rscience can bring forward in support of the contention. The 

whole thing, from start to finish, is a myth, as we have 

abundantly demonstrated, and must be rejected. 

Mr. Laing further says that : 

" The conclusions of science are irresistible, and old forms 
of faith, however venerable and however endeared bv a thousami 
associations, have no more chance in a collision with science than 
George Stephenson's cow had, if it stood on the rails and tried to 
stop the progress of a locomotive." 

^^^^ From purely practical data we have already seen that 
^^B^*the conclusions of science" are as unreasonable and 
^^^^ fallacious as it is possible for the human mind to conceive. 
A mixture of infidel superstitions and gross absurdities 
constitute the most of present-day science respecting the 
world we live on. Its relation to truth is as darkness to 
tight. Science has as much chance in a collision with 
TRUTH as a rotten ship would have in a collision with an 

Even professedly Christian people are hoodwinked and 
J by modern hypothetical science. 
, Giberne in " Sun, Moon and Stars," says, when 

PI speaking of the Moon : 

[ "All is dead, motionless, still. Is this verily a blasted world? 

Has it fallen under the breath of Almighty wrath, coming onl 
scorched and seared ?" 
The " lesser light " that God declares He made to " rule 
the night" is set down as a blasted world, and that by a 
professed Christian ! To this end the teaching of modem 
astronomy tends to " attract " all who receive its dicta, and 
cannot, therefore, be retained in the same mind with the 

A noteworthy feature of the present day is the fact that 
many so-called Christian ministers are joining hands with 
the enemies of the Bible to teach the people that the Old 
Book is so very unscientific that it can no longer be regarded 
in the light of a word from God at all. 

In the Christian World Pulpit," of 14th June, 1893, the 
1 Rev. C. F. Aked is reported as saying, at Pembroke Chapel, 

^^v-Liverpool, that : 

^^^K " No student of science is able to believe that any such Hood 

^^^^B as that recorded in the early chapters of Genesis ever took place 

^^^H^ in tbe history of the humaa race . , . . The Flood story IS A 

^^^H JtfyrH, 'not history'" ■^~ 


This gentleman has arrived at this conclusion by sup- 
posing that science is truth, and he is logically forced to 
believe that the Bible is a myth. Then what say the avowed 
enemies of the Book of God ? Says the Freethinker y of i6tli 
October, 1892 : 

" There is something in Christianity calculated to make it hostile 
to science. Its sacred books are defaced by a puerile cosmogony j and a 
vast number of physical absurdities ; while its whole atmosphere^ in the 
New as tsxll as in the Old Testament^ is in the highest degree unscientific. 

The Bible gives a false account of the origin of the world; a foolish 
account 0/ the origin of man ; a ridiculous account of the origin of 
languages. It tells us of a universal flood which never happened. And 
all these falsities are bound up with essential doctrines, such as the fall 
of man and the atonement of Christ ; with important moral teachings 
and social regulations. It was therefore inevitable that the Church, 
deeming itself the divinely -appointed' guardian of Revelation, should 
oppose such sciences as astronomy, geology, and biology, which could 
not add to the authority of the Scripture, but might very easily weaken 
it. Falsehood was in possession, and truth was in exile or a prisoner,*^ 

This is clinched by the Public Press which teaches 
people to think. Reynolds* Newspaper y of 13 th October, 1895, 

says : 

" The most noteworthy feature of the British Association 
this year is that the assembled savants — representing religion, 
science, philosophy, politics — have surrendered hands down to views 
which, if accepted by anyone ten years ago, would be sneered at 
as a mark of disgrace. The Church has had to give in because 
geology and biology have been too strong for the Book of Genesis, 
which is no longer to be accepted as a real account of the Creation, 
but merely a symbolical one. The incontestable experiments and 
experiences of the practical scientists have proved that Darwin 
was right, and that evolution is as certain a law as that of gravita- 
tion. What a number of the ' learned ' books of a few years ago 
opposing evolution must now be ignominiously withdrawn from 
ourculation ? And how small must the controversial parson and 
the lay evangelist, who would prove to you in ' two jiffies that 
science was all bosh,' feel at the thunders ot competent scholars ! ' 

While the Press is filled with suchlike articles, the 
people who do not think for themselves take for granted 
that science is right, and as a consequence, reject the Bible. 

If I were asked to state the main cause of Modern 
Infidelity, I should say SCIENTIFIC FALSEHOODS 

In the "Earth Review" for January, 1893, the following 
is found : 


When we consider that the advocates of the earth's stationary 
and central position can account for, and explain the celestial 
phenomena as accurately, to their own thinking, as we oati oixtSs 
ia Additioa to which they aa.v^\Yi^^Nv^Q;vi<i^Q(i*Qsx^\^^<.\\^'5'^N^asN^^ 

SCRIPTURE and FACTS in their favour. WHICH WE HAVE 
NOT : il is not withont a show of reason that the}' maintain the 
saperiority of their system .... However periect onr theorf 
may appear in our estimation, and however simply and satisfact- 
orily the Keutonian hypothesis may seem to us to accou' t for 
all the celestial phenoiiiena, ytt jct arc lurt comptUid to admit the 
asloundmg truth that. IF OUR PREMISES BE DISPUTED 
OF ITS OWN ACCURACY.— Dr. Wuodhvuse, a lalt Proftssor (^ 
Astronomy at Cambridge." 


^^^ Ihose who believe the plain and provable facts oi the 
Bible are set down as lunatics, but the above shows where 
the lunacy really lies. 

John Wesley did not believe in the teachings of the 
men of the modern astronomical school, although most of 
his followers do. In his Journal he writes : 

"The more I consider them, the more I doubt of all systems 
of astronomy .... Even with regard to the distance of the sun 
from (he earth, some affirm it lo be only three, and others ninety 
loilUonB of miles." 

In Vol. 3 of the work which records his Journal, " Ex- 
tracts from the works of Rev. J. Wesley," page 203, the 
following occurs : 

Jannary 1st, 1765. 
" This week, 1 wrote an answer to a warm letter published 
^^_ in the ' London Magazine '; the author whereof is much displeased 

^^^_ that I presume to doubt of the modern astronomy. I cannot help 

^^^m it ; nay, the more 1 consider, the more my doubts increase ; so that 

^^^H at present I doubt whether any man on earth knows either the 

^^B distance or the magnitude, I will not say of a. fixed star, but of 

H Saturn or Jupiter — yea, of the Sun or Moon." 

In Volume 13, page 359, referring again to the subject 

I of theoretical astronomy, he says : 

^^^L " And so the whole hypothesis of innumerable suns and worlds 

^^^B moving round them vanishes into thin air." 

^^^B At page 430 of the same volume we find that ; 
^^^K "The planets revolutions we are acquainted with ; but who 

^^^K to this day is able regularly to demonstrate either their magnitude 

^^^H or their distance, unless he will prove as is the usual way, Ikt 

^ magililudt /rata the distance, and the distance from the viagnitade ?'' 

Thus, this admittedly great and good man stands out in 
bold contrast with many of the present day " reverend " 
gentlemen, The Bishop of Peterborough is another notable 
example. He says ; 

" I have no fear whatever, that the Bible will be found, In 
the loDg run, to contain more science than all the theories gf 
pbiloBophers put together," 


a. ^H 

Let me supplement this remark by stating that the Bihlu, 
and >^hs Bible only, is THE scientific book of the Universe. 
It is the only volume which can be proved true from siart to 
finish. I am not now going into the details of Bible Pyscho- 
logy, Zoology, History, Philology, Ethnology, and the like. 
If time and space allowed all these could be proved as true 
as Bible Astronomy, and every one of them consistent with 
the facts of Nature, as I have shown Bible Cosmogony to be. 

I shall now quote another infidel and reverend gentle- 
man. In the Chris/ian World Piilpity of jqth March, 1893, 
the Rev. G. St. Clair, F.G.S., of Cardiff, contributes a sermon 
headed " Where is Heaven r " ; the text being taken from Acts 
i., 9 : "And as they were looking He was taken UP, and aj 
cloud received him out of their sight." ^| 

This wolf in shepherd's clothing goes on to say : ^B 

"In 1492 Columbug sailed westward io search of the East 
Indies, and 50 years later Magellan actually sailed away from 
Europe in one direction a.nd returned in the other, having 
voyaged al! round the world. It was thus shewn that the world 
la a globe. Previously the common nolion had been that the earth 
waa flat, and heaven a little way above the clouds, and the place 
of the dead — the wicked dead, if not all the dead — somewhere 
underneath. These were ancient ideas and the fact that we find 
them In the Bible is one proof that the Bible is an ancient book. 
The Bible writers had been educated to believe that God had 
laid foundations for the earth, or supported it on pillars. Heaven 
was His throne, the earth His footstool." 

According to this preacher the Bible writers had been 
educated to believe a pack of lies. But, as I have already 
shown, what they believed, and what every consistent 
Christian believes to-day, is in perfect agreement with the 
great book of Nature, which lies open to every man who 
will believe its evidence. 

Good advice is given to theologians by Dr. W. B. 
Carpenter in the " Echo" for 4th May, iSga, as follows; 

" If theologians will once bring themselvea to look upon 
nature, or the material universe as the embodiment of the Divine 
Thought, and the scientific study of nature as the endeavour to 
discover and apprehend that thought, they will see that it is their 
duty, instead of holding themselves altogether aloof from th« 
pursuit of science, or stopping short in the search for scientific 
truth, wherever it points towards a result that seems in discord- 
ance with their preformed conceptions, to supply themselves 
honestly to the study of it, as a revelation of mind and will of the 
Deity, which is certainly not less authoritative than that w^ich 
He has made to us through inspired men, and which is fitted to 
afford its true interpretation," 





Moses has been much maligned by modern scientific 

infidels. The " Muses " of December, 1895, has the 
following : 

" Moans has given hia crude ideas as to the age of tha worlii, 
but modern philosophers and scientists have clearly an equal 
right to giuB their deductions and opinions, especially as they 
produce evidence in which department Moses was very much at 
a disadvantage." 

In the minds of unthinking multitudes science has 
carried all before it. as the following fi-om Dr. Carpenter's 
work, " Nature and Man," pages 365 and 366, shows ; 

" The geological interpretation of the history of the earth 
has taken the place of the Mosaic Cosmogony m the current belief of 
educated men, notwithstanding all thedenunciations of theological 

The " Agnostic Journal," of 5th January, 1889, shows 
clearly that it is quite impossible to believe the Bible state- 
ments AND Modern Science : 

"The account of creation in Genesis Is obviously inconsis- 
tent with the real facts, both as regards the relations of the 
earth to the sun, moon, and stars; the crystal vault separating 
the waters ; the manner and order of succession of vegetable 
and animal life, and numerous other points. It can be defended 
only on the plea that the inspired revelation was not intended to 



all life, except that of a few pairs of animals preserved and 
living together for a year in an ark of limited dimensions, from 
wbich the earth was re-peopled, involves not only physical 
impossibilities, but is directly opposed to the most certain coacluiians 
of ge^)logical and zoological science," 

" The true history of the human race has been the direct 
contrary of that given by the Bible." 

How long will it be ere professed friends of the Bible 
bestir themselves to read the book of Nature in order to 
discover whether the Book they profess to believe, because 
it gives evidence of its Divine Origin, is in accordance with 
the facts of Nature as we find them to-day r 

The creed of the Agnostic — the know-nothing man — is 
briefly summed up by the "New York Independent" as 
follows : 

" I believe in a chaotic Nebula self existent Evotver of 

Heaven and Earth ; and in the differentiation of this original 

homogeneous Mass. Its first-gotton Product wbich was self- 

formed into separate worlds, divided into land and water, 

self-organized into plants aodaY\ima\s,Te'pi(idwiieATO\'L^ts^eGV«,, 

fiirtbor deveJoped into higbei oiiets, a,a4 fe-naSi-j ^ftS\xvtA, 



r&tloDalised, and perfected in Man. He descended from the 
Monkey, ascended to the Philosopher, and sitteth down in the 
rites and customs of Civilisation under the laws of a developing 
Sociology. From thence he shall come a.gain, by the disuite- 
gration of the culmioated Heterogeneousness, back into the 
original Homogeneousnesa of Chaos. I believe in the wholly 
impersonal Absolute, the wholly nn . Catholic Church, the 
Disunion of the Saints, the Survival of the Fittest, the Persist- 
ence of Force, the dispersion of the Body, and in Death. 


Nnt only is there no room for God in what scientists „ 
pleased to term " Nature," but there is no want of such 
^©ing, as the following from Carpenter's " Nature 
^^n," page 385, tells : 



" ' The laws of light and gravitation,' wrote Mr. Atkinson to 
Harriot Martineau 30 years ago, ' extend over the universe and ' 
explain whole classes of phenomena ' : this explanation, according 
to the same writer, is all sufficient, PHILOSOPHY FINDING 
ANY." J 

' The Earth and its Evidences," of ist October, 1888, hasi 
e following : ■ 

"The attempt to harmonise the Mosaical and the modern or 
professional system of the universe, is plainly to attempt the 
communion of light with darkness. How often has failure waited 
on such incongruous unions ! But, ^till, some there, are who 
seem to recognise the hopelessness of the task. They c: 
divest themselves of the idea that science must have been i 
what justified in setting up her authority against that of the 
scripture records; — that humanity could not be so deceived as to 
adhere to a system of cosmogony, for more than a century and a. 
half, which has been talked about and read and studied by some 
of the profoundest of modem thinkers, and to be proved, at last, 
no better than an old wives' fable, and as baseless and untrue, 
from the first line to the last, as if it had been invented by a class 
of village school children. If modem theories were only partially 
true, there might have been some consolation in thinking that 
humanity is duomed to err, and that the foundations or their^. 
vaunted science, were based upon facts. But this plea is utterii ' 
hopeless, and the very beginning of their complicated system i 
the most faulty of the whole. They are without excuse ; for th^j 
deliberately abandoned the only clue given them at the ver. 
outset of their inguiry. The first chapter of Genesis supplied 
them with the outlme of the entire system of physical cosmogony. 
That the earth was not a 'planet' was shown by the very first 
verse in the Bible. The two systems are kept most distinct 
throughout the whole of the sacred volume. The Almighty never 
calls himself the Gad of the sun or of the moon or of the stars; 
but in innumerable instances does he style himself the ' God of 
all the earth.' the ■ Lord and King of all the earth.' St. Paul 
decJaics that 'there are b"'""= "i^lestial and bodies tettestlal,hu.t. 






e glory o 


e celestial is one, 

d through every pa^* 
and chapter of the Bible, that to ignore or argue it aw&y, is rimply 
to treat the word of God as a lie from the beginning, to the end. 
If the universe is composed of nothiog but planets, then the whole 
of a honse is its roof, and the whole of the sea a dewdrop. All 
the planets were made on one and the same day, 96 hours after 
the creation of the earth. Many astronomers wonder why the 
earth was ever mentioned at all. ' A little insignificant dot of a. 
planet,' about as proportionate in sine to the sun, as a honey-bee 
to a buffalo. And what is their authority tor this astounding 
assertion — this impious contradiction to every word of inspira- 
tion ? We ask what and who is their authority ? Some Smith 
DC Jones or Robinson, that is all I And Christianity has bowed 
its head in meek submission to these upstart oracles, and treated 
the Word of God as dnng, and with the same contempt that a 
philosopher would the intelligence of a magpie or a jay I 

" Hugh Miller truly said that 'the battle of the evidences v/itl 1 
havetobefought on the field uf physical science and according I 
to the logic of demonstrable facts,' This is the conflict to which I 
we are fast hastening, this the last great war of opinions, which I 
every day is bringing nearer and nearer to our doors. The issues | 
are most momentous, and as wide as the world in interest and 
importance. If ' science ' wins the day, religion is the greatest 
bugbear that ever befooled humanity ! If, on the other hand, the 
facts as narrated in the inspired records are infalliblj' anil 
demonstrably true, then has Christendom been the victim of 111" 
most impious and baseless imposture that ignorance and credulity 
could ever be exposed to. 

" Modern science and religion cannot work together I Thoa 
who think they can cannot possibly believe or understand eithecl 
No man can eat bread and fancy he is drinking water. So noone 
can believe a single doctrine or dogma of modem astronomy, and 
accept the Scriptures as a divine revelation. And to teach Iheffli 
side by side, in our schools and class rooms, is just to instill into 
the mind of the children that science is far superior to sense, and 
that falsehood and fraud are more desirable than tnith and fact. 

" Modern philosophy begins toattack the very tirst verse in 
the book of Genesis ; and asserts that a pre-Adamite earth existed 
before the one subsequently referred to ; that the seven ' evenings ' 
and seven ' mornings ' so accurately and particularly and distinctly 
specified in that first chapter, were not periods of twice twelve 
hours, bnt incalculable ages of time, of which no record exists, 
and are only made known to us through the laborious deductions 
of the more than inspired geologist I If this is so, then the 
'seventh' day was an age also; and the Jews ought to have 
observed it, for a thousand years at a stretch t But if they were 
right in accepting it as a period of only 24 hours, then the remain- 
ing six must each have had exactly the same length, and the 
frantic geologist has to account for his 'stratas' and 'deltas' on 
some other supposition. It is important and highly necessary 
that we dwell a httle on this, the first point that the modem 
theorist has assailed. If he can prove that he is right in his 
conjecture or rather in Ms positive assertion that days do not 
mean days, then is UieiYift4e\SM\\v\'i^^*.^'vo.\'4.M^hiag to scorn 


ffier phrase and every other statement, from the first verse 
last in the Bible. And the theologian and the evangelist 
only expose themselves to derision and pity when they plead for 
any reverence for a book compiled on such vague and meaning- 
less and delusive principles, and in language which has to be 
interpreted by pagan astrologers and infidel professors, before we 
can comprehend what is intended or ought to be understood I If 
the 'seven days' of Creation's week do not mean just what we 
understand by seven days, ihen all the Bible is symbolic, and ts 
to be read upside down, and we must believe the very contrary 
to what is expressed. 

" Till after the sixth day, all that was done, was not accom- 
plished by any effort of nature, but by the personal agency of the 
Creator alone. 

"Thus it is seen that Moses only begins to speak of Nature, 
or natural operations, n/ii^r the seventh daj'. When, therefore, 
it is said that ' God rested,' it is, by natural implication, affirmed 
that Nature began to work or to act. And it is by losing sight of 
this most important fact that geology has made too many palpable 
blunders ; and the soundness of that and all collateral sciences, 
in their very elementary principles, depend entirely on an accurate 
and distinct appreciation of this grand truth I The modern 
geologist may just as wisely argue that the live loaves that fed the 
five thousand, were made from grain that was ever grown in a 
field, or threshed in a barn, or ground in a mill, or baked in an 
oven, as to argue that what took place during those actual six 
days of Creation, was the effect of natural operations or of 

"Lord Bacon, in his 'Confession of Faith,' speaks most 
soundly upon this subject, as upon most others. He says, ' I 
believe, that God created the heaven and the earth ; and gave 
unto them constant and perpetual laws, which we call "laws of 
Nature,' but which mean noihing but God's laws of Creation. 
That the laws of Nature which now remain, and govern 
inviolably till the end of the world, began to be in force when 
God rested from his work. That, notwithstanding that God both 
rested from creation since the first Sabbath, yet, nevertheless He 
doth accomplish and fulfil His divine will in all things, great and 
small, general and particular, as folly and exactly by providence, 
as He could do by miracle and new creation ; though His working 
be not now immediate and direct, but by compass and control ; 
not violating nature, which is He hath ordained for His creatures." 

The inspired volume declares that : 

"The works of the Lord are great, aought out of all them 
that have pleasure Iheieinr— Psalm iii, a. 

We are fiilly warranted, therefore, in seeking out the 
: of Nature, because , when rightly understood, God's 
;3 declare His wisdom and power. But the infidel 
s with the sole object of getting data for proving the 
k which so strongly testifies against his unrighteous 
^A myth and a delusion. 





In the Book of Genesis it is declared that God created 
the heaven and the earth, the lights in the heavens, the 
firmament to keep the waters above it from the waters below 
it, and in the books that follow, the foundations of the earth 
and other truths of like import are dealt with. The following 
passages show that the earth (dry land) is founded on the 
waters of the mighty deep, and is a motionless stretched -out 
structure, to which the heavens are parallel. Psalm 24 : 1, n 
136: 1-9 ; 102 : 25 ; 104 : 1-5 ; Isaiah 44 : 24 ; 48: 13 ; 42:5; 
Deut, 5:8; Zech, 1 2 ; 1 ; Jeremiah 3 1 : 35-37 ; 1 Sam. 2:81 
Proverbs j: 19; 8: 22-30; Joh 9 : i-io; 38; 1-1 1. 

The earth has borders which are impassable by man, as 
Job z6 : 10 declares. See also Psalm 74 : 16, 17. 

The movement of the sun over a stationary world is 
clearly shown in such passages as Psalm 24 ; Ecc. 1: 51 
Judges 5:31; Psalm 19. 

That the stars are small is seen by the prophetic 
utterances of Revelations 6 : 13. If they be worlds many 
times larger than the earth, how could they fall on it r See 
Rev. 8; 10. 

Then 1 Corinthians 15 : 40, 41, reminds us that thereare 
terrestrial bodies as well as celestial, which truth the 
astronomer denies, by making the earth a celestial body : 

"There are also celestial bodies and bodies terrestrial, bul 
the glory of tbe celestial is one and the glory ol the terrestrial 
is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of 
the moon, and another glory of the stars ; for one star diffeteth 
from another star in glory." 

In Joshua 10 : 12-14 the following language is utterly 
inconsistent with scientiiic teaching that the earth moves to 
cause day and night. If the sun stands still and Joshua 
commanded it to do what it always does, what an ignorant 
man he must have been, to be sure ; To ask for a miracle to 
be performed in order that the " course of Nature " might 
remain as usual r Surely any person can see that it is 
totally unnecessary to ask the aid of miraculous power to 
prevent the sun from moving, if it never does move. But I 
shall let the passage speak tor itself: 

" Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord 
delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel ; and he 
said in the sight of all Israel, ' Bun, stand thou stih upon Gibeon; 
and thou, Moon, in the Valley of Ajalon,' AND THE SUN 
people had avenged themselves upon their e 


Now, if the story of modern astronomy that the earth 
revolves and not the sun, be true, the only conclusion that 
can be arrived at is that the Bible is no better than a child's 
school book to record such an impossibility, and that, there- 
fore, Joshua and the whole story is a myth. But we know 
that the sun moves, and we further know that the earth has 
neither axial nor orbital motion ; and we conclude, therefore, 
that Joshua's command was perfectly consistent with fact 
and with his faith in the power of God to rule and overrule 
in His own world. Professor Totten, of Newhaven, in his 
pamphlet on " Joshua's Long Day," says : 

" It is the Bible that Atheists and Infidels attack— the Old 
Testament chiefly — for they are logical, and perceive that if the 
foundation goes, the super-structure cannot stand, no matter 

how eloquently it can be clothed in Agnostic sermons 

It vrill not do to doubt the universality of the Flood, and ask 

men to accept a Saviour who alludes to it If the story 

of Eden and the Deluge, of Jericho and Joshua are myths or 
fables, and not literal facts, then to the still rational mind all 
that follows them is equally so, and faith, lost in those who 
foretold his Advent, can never be savingly and logically found 
again in Christ and his apostles." 

These words are true, and show that modern astronomy 
and the Bible are on either side of an impassible gulf. 

The Rev. W. Howard, of Liverpool, however, thinks 
differently. In his pamphlet " Joshua commanding* the Sun 
to stand still ; the miracle explained and defended," he says 
{tn/er alia) : 

" Why did not the ocean overflow the land ? Run with a 
pail of water until you come id contact with a wall, and observe 
the effect upon the liquid, how it will dash over the side : and 
the sudden stoppage of the rotary mption of the earth would 

naturally send the sea. almost all over the dry land You 

know the shaking you get with the violent stoppage of an express 
train going at sixty miles an hour, and we ask you, please, to 
fancy the result to us, and to all cattle, dwelling houses, monu- 
ments, and even trees, if the eatthy which at the equator moves 
nearly i,ioo miles an hour, was brought quickly to- a standstill." 

•* I have now a FIFTH VIEW to lay before you, which 

appears to be both rational and simple." •* My belief is 

this : Joshua and his men having walked all night, as the 9th 
verse tells us, would be tired next morning, but God caused a 
great trembling to spread itself amongst the foe, and there was 
an easy victory. When the war had pursued the Amorites some 
distance, hailstones fell upon them and did much damage. At 
the approach to Bethhoron the hailstorm increased in fury ; and 
Joshua, seeing the devastation produced, and being cognisant 
of the fatigue of his men, prayed Heaven to let the hurricane go on 
till total aod irreparable disastet >nq^% voSiioX^^^r 


This poor man in his ignorance of the Bible and Nature 
tries to harmonise infidel astronomy with Bible truths, but he 
utterly fails, as the above quotation shows. 

The learned Jewish historian, Josephus, in his " Antiqui- 
ties of the Jews," Book v., cap. i, section 17, says : 

'* Joshua made haste with his whole army to assist them 
(the Gibeonites), and marching day and night, in the morning 
he fell upon the enemies as they were going up to the siege ; and 
when he had discomfited them he followed them, and pursued 
them down to the descent of the hills. The p«ace is called 
Bethhoron ; where he also understood that God assisted them, 
which He declared by thunder and thunder-bolts, as also by the 
falling of hail larger than usual. Moreover, it happened that 
the day was lengthened that the night might not come on too soon, 
and be an obstruction to the zeal of the Hebrews in pursuing 

their enemies." Now that the day was lengthened at 

this time, and was longer than ordinary, is expressed in the 
books laid up in the Temple." 

In a note under this paragraph, Mr. Whiston, the 
learned compiler of Josephus* works, while hesitating what 
explanation to give the miracle, says : 

** The fact itself was mentioned in the Book of Jasher, now 
lost. Josh. 10 : 13, and is confirmed by Isaiah (28 : 21), H^bakkuk 
(3: 11), and by the son of Sirach (Eccles. 46 : 4). In the i8th 
Psalm of Solomon, ver. ult, it is also said of the luminaries, 
with relation no doubt to this and the other miraculous standing 
still and going back, in the days of Joshua and Hezekiah. * They 
have not wandered from the day He created them, they have 
not forsaken their way, from ancient generations, unless it were 
when God enjoined them (so to do) by the command of his 
servants.' See Authent. Rec. part I., page 154." 

The lights that God made for the use of this the only 
world, move above it, and in Joshua's long day the God of 
Creation hearkens to the voice of a man and causes the sun 
to stand still. The miracle needs no defending. IT ONLY 

portions where it is very evident from the context that a 
symbolical meaning is to be attached to it) and MODERN 

•* Parallax/' in his invaluable work ** Zetetic Astronomy/' 

says J 

** To say that the Scriptures were not intended to teach 

science truthfully is, in substance, to declare that God himself 

hdi stated, and commissioned His prophets to teach, things 

H'hJch are utterly false. Those Newtonian philosophers who 

ftiW hold that the Sacred Volume \s \.Yie -woxd o£ God, are thu6 

placed in a fearful dilemma. Ho>n ^eocv. \>cv.e V*^^ ^-^^Xewv^ ^ 


'i opposite in eliaraeter. be reconciled. Oil and 
fill not cum bine— mix tliern by violence ae we inay, tiiey 
will again separate when allowed to rest. Call oil oil, and water 
water, and acknowledge ihein to be distinct in iiature and value, 
^ but let no " hodge-podge " be attempted, and passed off as a 
' genuine compound of oil and water. Cat) Scripture the Word of 
God, the t'reator and Kulerof all things, and the Fountain of 
all Truth i and call the Newtonian or Copemican system of 
astronomy the word aud work of man — of man, too, in hia 
vainest mood — so vain and conceited as not to be content with 
the direct and simple teachings of his Maker, but must rise np in 
rebellion, and conjure into existence a fanciful complicated 
fabric, which being insisted upon as true, creates and necessitates 
the dark and horrible interrogative— is God a deceiver F Has 
He spoken direct and unequivocal falsehood ? Can we no longer 
indulge in the beautiful and consoling thought that God's justice, 
love and truth, are uncharging and reliable as ever I Let 
Christians at least — for sceptics and atheists may be left out of 
the question^to whatever division of the Church they belong, 
look to this matter calmly and earnestly. Let them determine 
to uproot the deception which has led them to think that they 
can altogether ignore the plainest astronomical teachings of 
Scripture, and yet eudorse a system to which it is in e\'ery sense 

" The following language is quoted as an instance of the 
manner in which the doctrine of the earth's rotundity and the 
■ plurality of worlds interfere with Scriptural teachingB : 

' ' The theory of original sin ia confuted (by our astronomical 
and geological knowledge) ; and I cannot permit the belief, when 
I know that our world is but a mere speck, a perishable atom in 
the vast space of creation, that God should select this little spot 
to descend upon and assume our form, and clothe Himself in our 
flesh, to become visible to human eyes, to the tiny beings of this 
comparatively insignificant world. "Thus millions ot distant 
worlds, with the beings alloited to them, were to be extirpated 
and destroyed in consequence of the original sin of Adam, 

' No sentiment of the human mind can surely be njore 
derogatory to the divine attributes of the Creator, nor more 
repugnant to the known economy of the celestial bodies. For in 
the first place, who is to say among the infinity of worlds, whether 
MAdam was the only creature tempted by Satan and fell, and by 
bis fall involved all the other worlds in his guilt.' 

"The difficulty experienced by the author of the above 
jemarks is clearly one which can no longer exist when it is seen 
tbat the doctrine of a plurality of worlds is an impossibility. 
That it is an impossibility is shown by the fact tbat the son, 
moon, and stars are very small bodies, and very near to the 
earth ; this fact is proved by actual n on -theoretical measure- 
ment ; this measurement is made on the principle of plane 
trigonometry ; this principle of plane trigonometry is adopted 
because the earth is experimentally demonstrated to be a plane, 
and all the base lines employed in the triangulation are hori- 
zontal. By the same practical method of reasoning, all the 
difficulties which upon geological and astronomical grounds have 
^en raised to the literal teaching of the Scriptures may ' 

the fl 


completely destroyed. The doctrine that the earth is a globe 
has been proved, by the most potent evidence which it is possible 
for the human mind to recognise — ^that of direct experiment and 
observation — to be unconditionally false. It is not a question of 
degree, of more or less truth, but of absolute falsehood. That of 
its diurnal and annual motion, and of its being one of an infinite 
number of revolving spheres, is equally false ; and therefore the 
Scriptures, which negative these notions and teach expressly the 
reverse, must in their astronomical philosophy at least be 
literally true. In practical science, therefore, atneism and denial 
of Scriptural teaching and authority have no foundation. If 
human theories are cast aside, rejected as entirely worthless, 
and the facts of nature and legitimate reasoning alone relied on, 
it will be seen that religion and true science are not antagonistic, 
but are strictly parts of one and the same system of sacred 

*' To the religious mind this matter is most important — it is 
indeed no less than a sacred question ; for it renders complete 
the evidence that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures are 
absolutely true, and must have been communicated to mankind 
by an anterior and supernal Being. 

" If, after so many ages of mental struggling, of speculation 
and trial, of change and counterchange, we have at length 
discovered that all astronomical theories are false; that the 
earth is a plane and motionless, and that the various luminaries 
above it are lights only and not worlds; and that these very 
facts have been declared and recorded in a work which has been 
handed down to us &om the earliest times — from a time in fact, 
when mankind had lived so short a period upon the earth that 
they could not have had sufficient experience to enable them to 
criticise and doubt, much less to invent and speculate — ^it follows 
that whoever dictated and caused such doctrines to be recorded 
and preserved to all generations must have been superhuman, 
omniscient, and to the earth and its inhabitants pre-existent. 
That Being could only be the Creator of the world, and His 
truth is recorded in the Sacred Writings. The Scriptures— the 
Bible, therefore — cannot be other than the word and teaching of 
God. Let it once be seen that such a conclusion is a logical 
necessity ; that the sum of the purely practical evidence which 
has been collected compels us to acknowledge this, and we find 
ourselves in possession of a solid and certain foundation for all 
our future investigations. 

*• That everything which the Scriptures teach respecting the 
material world is literally true will readily be seen. It is a very 
popular notion among astronomers that the stellar universe is an 
endless congeries of systems, of suns and attendant worlds, 
peopled with sentient beings analogus in the purpose and destiny 
of their existence to the inhabitants of this earth. 

"This doctrine of a plurality of worlds, although it may be 
admitted to convey most magnificent ideas of the uiverse, is 
purely fanciful, and mav be compared to some of the * dreams of 
the alchemists' who laboured with unheard-of patience and 
enthusiasm to discover a * philosopher's stone' to change all 
common metal into gold and silver ; atv elixir -oitae Vq -^xesewv^wd 
to cure all the disorders o£ the bum^u ix^m^\ ^.xv^XXx^ '\wC\n^\^«>^ 

L ' 


solvent ' which was deemed necessary to enable them to make all 
things homogeneous, as preliminary to precipitation, or concre- 
tion, into any form desired by the operator. However grand the 
first two projects might have been in their realisation, it is known 
that they were never developed in a useful and practical sense. 
They depended upon the third — the discovery of a solvent which 
would dissolve everything. The idea was suddenly and most 
unexpectedly destroyed by a few remarks of a simple but critical 
observer, who demanded to know what service a substance could 
be to them which would dissolve all things. Seeing that it would 
dissolve everything what would they keep it in ! It would dissolve 
every vessel wherein they sought to preserve it. The alchemists 
had never * given a thought ' to such a thing. They were entirely 
absorbed with the supposed magnitude and grandeur of their 
purposes. The idea never struck them that their objects involved 
inconsistency and impossibility ; but when it did strike, the blow 
was so heavy that the whole fraternity of alchemists reeled almost 
to destruction, and alchemy as a science, rapidly expired. The 
idea of a * plurality of worlds' is as grand and romantic as that 
of the 'universal solvent' and is a natural and reasonable con- 
clusion drawn from the doctrine of the earth's rotundity. It never 
occurred to the advocates of sphericity and infinity of systems 
that there was one great and overwhelming necessity at the root 
of their speculations. The idea never struck them that the con- 
vexity of the surface of the earth's standing water required 
demonstration. The explanation its assumption enabled them to 
give of natural phenomena was deemed sufficient. At length, 
however, another 'critical observer' — one a. most born' with 
doubts and criticisms in his heart — determined to examine prac- 
tically, experimentally, this fundamental necessity. 

** The great and theory- destroying fact was quickly discovered 
that the surface of standing water was perfectly horizontal. Here 
was another death-blow to the unnatural ideas and speculations of 

"Just as the 'universal solvent* could not be preserved or 
manipulated, and therefore the whole system of alchemy died 
away, so the necessary proof of convexity in the waters of the 
earth could not he founds and therefore the doctrme of rotundity 
and of the plurality of worlds must also die. Its death is now 
merely a question of time." 




The surface of all water, when not agitated by natural 
causes, such as winds, tides, earthquakes, &c., is perfectly 
level. The sense of sight proves this to every unprejudiced 
and reasonable mind. Can any so-called scientist, who 
teaches that the earth is a whirling globe, take a heap of 
liquid water, whirl tt round, and so make rotundity r He 
cannot. Therefore it is utterly impossible to prove that an 
ocean is a whirling rotund section of a globular earth, 
rushing through "space" at the lying-given-rate of false 
■ philosophers. 

When a youth, I stood upon the Dover shore of the 
tnglish Channel, and was told to watch a departing ship. 
" See ! There she goes ; down, down, down ! The hull has 
disappeared ! She is out of sight ! Now, my boy, you have 
had an occular demonstration that the world is round 
(meaning globular in shape), and SEEING IS BELIEV- 
ING." I walked up to an " old salt " who had a 
telescope, and said : " Can you see that big ship through 
your glass that's gone down the Channel, and is now out of 
sight I " " Yes, my son. Look I " The big ship immediately 
came into view again, as I peered through the sailor's 

glass ! " Why : my told me the earth was round, 

because that ship I can now see had turned down over the 
horizon!" "Aha! aha! sonny, I know they all says it! 
Now, I have been all over the world, but I never believed it. 
But, then, I have no learning, only my senses to rely upon, 
a'nd 1 says SEEING IS BELIEVING." 

I now, after many years, endorse the old sailor's ex- 
perience, that the world is not a globe, and 1 have never 
found the man who could prove by any practical demonstra- 
tion thathe,orI,areUvingon a whirling ball of earth and water! 



law does the demise earth and the rar^ air rush round together 
Declare, ye scientists, IF YOU KNOW ! The Scriptures cz 
God's inspired Prophets contradict the unreasonable 
illogical, unscientific delusion, and false philosophy, that th^ 
fixed earth is a hollow fireball with several motions ! 


There is an old adage ^ by which you can fix them^ 
There is not one lie true y no^ not if you pick them J' 


When grovelling minds of little worth 
Forsake the Lord of heaven and earth. 
What dreams of fancy they imbibe ; 
They claim as kin the monkey tribe. 
They set all history at defiance 
And call their speculations science, 
Then try to shew the wondrous plan 
Of how the ape became a man. 

All things to God men used to trace, 
And every species kept its place. 
But now we're told that men and worms 
Have only sprung from lower forms ; 
And when proud science lends her aid 
They'll tell us how these forms were made ; 
This thought is theirs — O happy notion ! 
" Mind is but matter put in motion." 

In works of art they see design. 
And own that wisdom did combine ; 
They say you may behold it in 
A watch, a mouse-trap, or a pin ; 
But all the flowers that scent the breeze, 
The fruits that grow upon the trees. 
The wondrous form and powers of man, 
Arose, they say, without a plan. 



If science shews that man escapes 
And leaves the ranks of grizzly apes ; 
Then science may reverse the plan 
And prove the ape a fallen man. 
And this new species yet may boast 
And gain the tails their fathers lost ; 
As matter moves and beauty withers, 
Time yet may class them with their fathers. 

No God they see in all creation ; 

They spurn the thought with indignation, 

Their main pursuit in life' is pelf; 

Their creed is — " Always mind yourself ^ 

They say to saint and sage and ruffian — 

" The future state is but a cofhn ; 

And when we pass beyond life's storms. 

We hope to be devoured by worms/' 

O charming hope for which they wait! 
What glory gilds their future state ! 
If here they do but little good, 
Yet after death they're used as food. 
Then let this glowing prospect cheer. 
Take care of self while you are here, 
Grow fat and plump till latest breath. 
And you'll be useful after death. 

D. S. 

From the " Christian Commonwealth*' Jan. i^th^ 1894. 



1. Primarily the Unknowable moved upon comos and 
evolved protoplasm. 

2. And protoplasm was inorganic and undifferentiated, 
containing all things in potential energy ; and a spirit of 
evolution moved upon the fluid mass. 

3. And the Unknowable said^ '* Let atotxv?. ^.i^x^^^" \ 
and their contact begat light, \veat, 3ix\di ^\^^\xvivvj . 

4. Andthe Unconditioned differentiated the atoms, eac 
after its kind ; and their combinations begat rock, air, an «^ 

5. And there went out a spirit of evolution from ll» * 
Unconditioned, and working in protoplasm by accretion ar *^ 
absorption, produced the organic cell. 

6. And cell, by nutrition, evolved primordial germ, an * 
germ developed protogene; and protogene began eozoor 'i 
and eozoon begat monad, and monad begat animalcule, 

7. And animalcule begat ephemera ; then began creep^ — =■ 
ing things to multiply on the face of the earth. 

8. And earthly atoms in vegetable protoplasm begi=^t 
the molecule, and thence came all grass and every herb i " 
the earth. 

9. And animalcule in the water evolved ^ns, tails, claiv^^^i 
and scales ; and in the air, wings and beaks; and on th^^^ 
land they sprouted such organs as were necessary, as p]ayt=!=d 
upon by the environment. 

10. And by accretion and absorption came the radia^^*^ 
and mollusca, and moUusca begat articulata, and articula^^^ 
begat vertebrata. 

1 1. Now these are the generations of the higher vert^^- 
brata, in the cosmic period when the Unknowable evolut^^t^ 
the bipedal mammalia. 

12. And every man of the earth, while he was yet a 
monkey, and the horse while he was a hipparion, and tlr'^e 
hipparion before he was an oredon. 

13. Out of the ascidian came the amphibian and beg"-^t 
the pentadactyle; and the pentadaclyle, by inheritance a«^d 
selection, pi'oduced the hylobate, from which the simiads in 
all their tribes. 

14. And out of the simiadfe the lemur prevailed above 
his fellows, and produced the platyrhine monkey. 

15. And the platyrhine begat the caterrhine, and the 
catterhine monkey begat the anthropoid ape, and the ape 
begat the longimanous orang, and the orang begat tfie 
chimpanzee, and the chimpanzee evoluted the what ts-itf 

16. And the what-is-it went to the land of Nod, and 
took him a wife of the longimanous gibbon.=. 

17. And in process of the cosmic period were born unto 
them and their children, the anthropomorphic primordial 

18. The homunsulus, the prognathus, the troglodyte, 
the autochthon, the tarragen, these are the generstiona of 
Witneval man. 


ig. And primeval man was naked and not ashamed, 
but lived in quadrumanus innocence, and struggled mightily 
to harmonise with the environment. 

20. And by inheritance and natural selections did he 
progress from the stable and homogeneous to the complex 
and heterogeneous ; for the weakest died and the strongest 
grew and multiplied. 

21. And man grew a thumb, for that he had need of it, 
and developed capacities for prey. 

22. For, behold the swiftest men caught the most 
animals, and the swiftest animals got away from the most 
men ; wherefore the slow animals were eaten and the slow 
men starved to death. 

23. And as types were differentiated the weaker types 
continually disappeared. 

24. And the earth was filled with violence; for man 
strove with man, and tribe wnth tribe, whereby they killed 
off the weak and foolish, and secured the survival of the 

From the " Rainbow^** and copied from, an American 


Dedicated to the Members of the Church Congress, held at 

Norwich, 1895. 

"Ah, man! 
You are so great — too great for this small world, 
For you have * proved ' that Christ is all a lie ! 
The Gospel that He taught us but a ' MYTH/ 
The Bible but a pack of legends, old 
And false traditions — you can prove it. Ay, 
You are ?o wise. O vain, presumptuous man, 
You love to think the * Word of God ' is false, 
And hope to mar its beauty with your sneers. 
Rail on ; God's citadel shall never fall to you, 
Smite as you may. 

You blazon great discoveries to the world. 
Fresh wonders brought to \\gVvt.V5 ^xxOcv ^.'s* ^^^i.^ 


Revealing Nature's • laws ' {we call them God's), 

Proving all things exist by hidden sacred laws, 

And, adding pride to folly, call them * chance,* 

Fool ! God has made those laws, and set the sun 

And all the planets daily to perform 

Their wondrous course, through endless aeons on, 

From cycle unto cycle, ne'er to cease. 

Do ye not know that what has been shall be. 

That nought is new, nought underneath the sun. 

As said the King of Wisdom — Solomon ? 

But, ye, the more ye search, new wonders find. 

And newer wonders, till the less ye love 

The Wonder-Maker, All Creating God. 

Why is it thus ? and why does Wisdom (?) turn 

Your heart from God, when He all Wisdom is ? 

But ye will rave in your demented pride, 

Wise in the worldly wisdom of the world, 

Wise in your darling theories — so false 

To sense, or truth, or manly, honest doubt 

Ye know so much, and yet one little child. 

In her sweet faith, is wiser than ye all. 

And nearer unto God. And ye would force 

Your base opinions on the ears of men, 

And bid them hearken to your hollow words ! 

Leading the blind with your phantasmal talk. 

Yourselves more blind than they, more dull your sense ; 

False prophets, fools, to kick against the pricks 

As did the bigot Pharisees of old ! 

But ye may rave ; think ye that truth will fail ? 

Think ye with puny breath to blast the Rock 

That has stood firm for nineteen hundred years 

Against the sceptic's scorn, the mocker's laugh, 

And borne the brunt of Infidelic sneer 

Immutable, in majesty supreme r 

Watching you beat yourselves to death upon it ! 

We fear not : do your worst. Right conquers MighL 

And God's great Truth must conquer in the end !" 

John Merrin. 


„ The inspired Psalmist says ihat " The hea\-ens declare 

^^ glory of G-od ; and the firmament showeth his handi- 
y'^fk" ; therefore, whatever some professed Christians affirm 
. the contrary, the subject of Creation is connected with 
^'Shl views of God. His worship, and His glor>'. Put if w« 
^ould have a right conception of God, and His glory, we 
f^'Ust see to it that we have a right ronception of His works 
'^ Creation, How, for instance, do we obtain an insight 
"ito the character of any great man, whether he be a poet, 
Politician, sculptor, genera! or king: Is it not by his acts, 
'^r his works ! But suppose these acts, or works, are mis* 
Represented to us, or defaced by someone, should wenothav«j 
ftlse and distorted views respecting the author, artist, or thte' 
maker of those things : Assuredly. And so it comes to 
pass in respect to the construction of the world, false views 
of the universe have led men into a misconception respecting 
the character of God, and even alas! in many cases to a 
denial of the very existence of such a personal Being. 

Let us, then, endeavour to come back to first principles.1 
The world exists, and must have come from somf where. It" 
is "unthinkable " to say it came by chance, or any "for- 
tuitous concourse of atoms," Its wonderful variety, the 
general co-relation and adaptibility of its various parts, and 
the exact and never-failing motions of all the heavenly bodies, 
provet to any well-balanced and unprejudiced mind, that some 
grand and controlling intelligence directs and rules over all. 
As the apostle Paul declares, "The invisible things of Him 
from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being under- 
stood by the things that are made, even His eternal powen 
and Godhead ; so that they are without excuse." Rom. i., 20»' 
A grand truth ties in this statement of the apostle. Paul 
was no fool. It is allowed on all sides, alike by friend and 
foe. Sceptic and Christian, M, Kenan and the Archbishop of 
Canterbury, that no one man has had more influence in 
forming Christianity, the history of which has for eighteen 
centuries been making the history of the civilised world, than 
the apostle Paul. His name will be had in honour when 
the names of the adversaries of the truth will have sunk into 
merited and everlasting oblivion. And this great man agrees 
with the Psalmist in leaching that the Creation, as set forth 
in the Bible, and as found in wh^t some call "Nature," sets 
forth unmistakably the grand truth that God IS. Now, thji 
is a fundamental verity, and the foundation of all true fait' 


eta ^^_ 



ve ™BF 

GOD IS, And "he that cometh to God must believe 
He IS. and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently 
seek Him." Now, this faith is, on the one hand, neither an 
unreasoning credulity, nor, on the other hand, is it a bigoted 
^wbelief. It is based on an intelligent and reasonable 
understanding of the things that are seen above and around 
us. ' 

The Book of Nature is open to all men ; but it must be 
read and studied without prejudice and without philosophical 
bias. We must come to it like little children, with the 
honest desire to know the truth, and not attempt to read 
into it our own, nor anyone else's, plausible or implausible 
hypotheses. If we do this patiently and persistently, we 
shall be "rewarded" i the grand and ineffaceable truth will 
dawn upon us that GOD IS. 

We shall see His glory in the bright and blazing sun as 
he goes forth majestically, like a giant to run his daily course, 
We shall own Hh Power and Godhead when the moon, 
queen of the night, rises in quiet and stately splendour, to 
reflect her silver radiance in every rippling stream. And we 
shall confess His wisdom and unfailing skill when, at night, 
we gaze up into the firmament and behold ten thousand 
glittering gems, shining in matchless beauty, and shedding 
upon the earth their silent influences, as they nightly perform 
their appointed revolutions. Truly we shall then confess 
with the Psalmist, that "the heavens declare the glory of 
God, and the firmament sheweth His handiwork." 

"The firmament sheweth His handiwork-" That vast 
and incomparable structure which spans the heavens, and 
covers the earth with its capacious dome, divides the waters 
which are "above" the firmament from the waters which 
are " under " the firmament. And when we realize some- 
thing of the tremendous size of this tent-like covering, 
spanning with one mighty arch across the whole of the 
outstretched earth ; when we consider its weight, its 
strength, its stability, and the avowed purpose for which it 
was made by the Creator, we can unhesitatingly and 
devoutly again exclaim with the Psalmist, "The firmament 
sheweth His handiwork." No wonder such a "work" 
occupied the whole of one day, the third, in the " great and 
marvellous " work of the six days Creation. Job, one of 
the finest, and certainly one of the most ancient, of true 
philosophers, when comparing the works of God with the 
puny works of man, asks : " Hast thou with Him spread out 
. fAe sky, yvtilcti is strong, and as a molten looking- 


' Job 37 ' 'S- It is, perhaps, this mirror-like quality which 

the firmament possesses that makes unbelieving " scientists " 
think that they can, with their glasses, peer into what they 
call " space," which they affirm to be " boundless." As well 
might a child, gazing upon the bosom of a glassy lake, 
affirm that it had no bottom, and that the sky and clouds, 
reflected from its placid surface, were slumbering in the 
unfathomed depths below, and not above, its waters. 

The idea of illimitable " space," filled with an infinity 
of revolving worlds or globes, is not only a bewildering 
idea, unfounded on fact, but it directly tends to remove the 
Creator, or rather the idea of a Creator, far, and farther, 
away from this earthly plane of ours. It necessarily and 
logically leads to Atheism ; and too often, alas ! it practi- 
cally leads men there. The idea of Heaven as a place, the 
abode of The Eternal, becomes to the logical and thinking 
Newtonian a myth; and God, if be acknowledge such a 
personal Being at all, becomes farther and farther removed 
from the scene of all earthly operations. Whereas the 
Saviour of the World, who " came down from Heaven," to 
do his Father's will, taught His disciples to believe that 
Heaven was not very far off; that it was directly and alwaA^s 
" above " us ; that God was concerned in the work of His 
hands ; and that as " our Father," He was near enough to 
hear the prayers of all those who call upon him in sincerity 
and truth. This is assuring: this is comforting. God cares 
for the world ; and He will punish those who afflict mankind 
with their selfishness, their greed, their falsehoods, and their 
oppressions. Yea, God has " so loved the world" — not the 
"globe," as some misguided Christians have lately printed 
and perverted this sublime text with a ridiculous "globe" 
stamped on the paper — God " so loved the world that He 
gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth ill 
Him should not perish but have everlasting life." This, we 
say, is comforting. It is as.suring. But, on the astronomical 
hypothesis, the world is like an uncared-for orphan, or a 
desolate wanderer : God is removed too far from us to be of 
any practical use ; and the idea of Pleaven is so vague, that 
such a place, if it exist at all, may be anywhere or nowhere ; 
" all round the globe ;" or spirited away from us altogether, 
"beyond the bounds of time and space." Thus the Chris- 
tian's hope is undermined, and his faith is eaten away at the 
very core by this insidious and so-called " scientific " worm. 
This is most calamitous ; yet even some of our " spiritual 
guides " are either so false to their professions^ or 




rhemselves, that they cr 

le the earth is ; we don't care whether it be round 
,, square or oblong, so long as" — yes, so long as they 
. good "living," and hold a respeciahle position in 
wiety : Is this it r Such a confession really means, when 
t into plain language : We do not care whether the Bible 
■ false, in its record of Creation, so long as our 
interests or our hope of " Salvation " is assured. But " woe" 
is pronounced against such easy going shepherds of Israel. 
" Woe " to them who are le-ving their flocks to become a 
prey to the devouring wolves of "Science," "falsely bo 
railed," as the great apostle intimates. Let us be on oui 
guard. There are honourable exceptions to such false 
shepherds and teachers, and others are being raised up to 
warn us. We have quoted some of their noble testimonies. 
Let us, give heed to these needful warnings. God has never 
left Himself without witneisses to tlis Truth whether in 
Nature or in Revelation. We may shew this, if the Lord 
permit, more fully another time as regards Creation truth. 

In conclusion, we would call the attention of all our 
readers to the seasonable warning given us by the Apostle 
Paul, where he says, " Beware lest any man spoil you 
through p/nlosop/iy und vain deceit, after the tradition of men, 
after the rudiments of the world, and «o^ ci/ier CHRIST." 

I Col. 2 : 8. And again. Let us " prove all things ; and hold 
^t that which is good." 
f " Zetetes." 




A squabble over the earth's age lately broke out between 
Lord Kelvin, styled by Earl Salisbury, " the greatest ot 
living scientists," and a Professor Perry, who disputed the 
infallibility of his chief. The scientific lord, formerly WilliWi 
Thomson, assumed, or as usual ^uppnsed, that the earth is a 
"homogeneous body," cooling at a fixed and uniform rate| 
therefore, that its age is somewhere between 20 millions and 
,400 million years. However, the lordly dictator haviv] 
\blished h's suppoaition, larded o-vet ■w\th mystical 

r havu)i_ 

a mtSmm 


'^ tnatics, also in words of thundering sound, what multitudi 
of simpletons will now gulp down the bolus without evef 
asking for the evidence so wholly wanting. Now, is a 
university professor so blind as not to see the enormous 
difference between 20 millions and 400 millions — viz., 380 
millions, to count which at the rate of 60 per minute, 12 
hours daily, would occupy 2^ years of a man's life ? Then, 
why call the vast continents making- up the land or earth a 
body, seeing that they have neither head, legs, nor any such 
members ; and why a body any more than a soul ? But, if 
by earth is meant all the oceans and continents rolled 
tojjether into an astronomer's imaginary globe, land being 
solid and ocean fluid, where is the homogeneity • En passant, 
this misuse of the words body and earth are but specimens 
of the wholesale verbal jugglery practised by scientists to 
cause mental confusion and darkness. Moreover the 
Glasgow professor to make the earth's age what he pleases 
has only to assume the rate of cooling accordingly. Yet the 
400 million years being too paltry a period for the evolution 
fable. Professor Perry rejects the supposition of cooling, and 
assumes that the earth's centre is now in a highly molten 
state, and with as much confidence as if he had been down in 
the infernal regions making a personal inspection, whilst 
Lord Kelvin assumes a familiarity with the earth's primeval 
conditions as if he had witnessed the Creation. 

Is not the fabulous chronology after all like the ocean- 
land-globe, a mere heirloom of ancient heathendom : The 
Japanese and Chinese to make chronology square with their 
abominable Buddhism suppose 3 million years for the earth's 
duration, the Hindaos for Brahminism 6 millions ; and now 
Professor Thomson, to please the atheistic evolutionists, is 
even willing to grant 4,000 million years as the greater limit, 
thereby confessing a blunder of 3,600 millions ; 

Further, the scientists can see nothing to admire beyond 
or above what they call nature, that is, the visible Creation, 
which by their assumption is its own Creator — having had an 
eternity of ages to evolve sun, moon, stars, oceans, and con- 
tinents out of an imaginary fiery gas — a god unaccounted for ; 
life out of death ; order, beauty, light out of darkness and 
chaos ; many thousand kinds of plants out of granite ; 
thousands of kinds of beasts, birds, fishes, insects, out of 
cabbages, trees, &c,, and man out of no one knows which kind 
of monkey ! Still this goddess Nature is confessed to be as 
helpless as the puppet of a punch and judy show, being 

■■l^ely dependent on mythical la'Vifi ■w\\\»i'ft b.'A -^is^ 

■e as I 
eing J 



tetgy too omnipotent for Nature to resist, and she is pulled. ' 
hirled, tossed, evolved, exploded. Just as these mythical 
ws please. Again, the laws thenselves are under a neces- 
' sity of operating according to rules, fixed how, why or when, 
no one knows; yea, unchangeable, at least, since tadpoles 
grew out of cabbages to father our ancestral apes, gorillas, 
or baboons. But whence the INVOLUTION that must hm 
PRECEDED the EVOLUTION is another nut too hard for , 
scientists to crack ! 

Is it hard with such cunning fables to deceive the multi- 
tudes so debased by the lying stories and abominable idle 
gossip of newspapers and like literature r And though 
foolish editors may jest at Moses, yet the Pentateuch still 
stands the oldest historical monument, so well authenticated 
and so full of unassailable internal evidence— so plainly 
endorsed by Jesus, whose well-attested Christhood no lover 
of truth can deny. With the date of Creation given i" 
Genesis, as well as the Patriarch's ages, along with periods 
of time given by the sacred Hebrew historians follomng 
Moses, we may calculate down to the first year of Cyrus, 
where we are assisted by Josephus and Greek historians, 
thereafter by an unbroken chain of literature down to the 
present year, eclipse and transit cycles confirming all. Hence 
we know that about 6,000 years ago, God said, " Let there 
be," and there was. 

In Dr. Dick's "Natural History" we have a specimen 
of the Geological method of calculating. He supposes, of 
course without any proof whatever, that God did not make 
the bed of th'^ Niagara, but that that river cut for itself the 
passage of six miles below the falls; and further supposing 
the Niagara to cut one foot yearly, he concludes it must 
have been so working for .31,000 years, but if it cuts, as 
others suppose, one inch yearly, we have more than 300,000 
years as the present or quartary period. Next he supposes, 
still without proof, that the underlying systems, the tertiary, 
secondary, primary, primordial rocks, represent as many 
antecedent periods of time. So, the quartary being 500 feet 
thick, and the tertiary 3,000 feet, we have six times 31,000 
years or six times 300,000 years to add for the earth's 
duration. Again, the thicknsss of the secondary rocks 
being 15,000 feet their period must be 30 times that of the 
present ; whilst the thickness of the primary is three times, 
and that of the primordial five times that of the secondary. 
Therefore, the earth's age is somewhere between 8i millions 
Bad about 100 million years; VvtVoiit xaW\w% wta account 


le unknown period of the igneous rocks. However, we 
now from Genesis i that God made all things in six days, 
11 the rocks on the third day, in strata according to Job 
xxviii. 5 ; therefore, granting the Niagara to cut one inch 
early it must since the creation have worn away only 
,ooo inches or 50 feet. 

Accordingly, shall we compute the earth's age by the 
ague and contradictory guesses of fellow worms called 
eologists, or by the authority of the Creator Himself? 


One school in attempting to bridge o'er the chasm. 
Invented the germinal cell " Protoplasm," 
Which was first />/organic, but afterwards seen 
To grow into " Sponges " and '* Polyps " marine ; 
From thence by ** Absorption,'^ ** Accretion,'' and 

Giving birth to the ** Bivalves " or " Molluscs/' or 

These creatures by striving grew fins, tails and claws. 
In spite of Dame Nature's implacable laws. 
They sprouted and turned into reptiles amphibious ; 
Of obstacles placed in the way quite oblivious. 
Urged on by '* Necessity " upwards they grew, 
Day by day giving birth to some quadruped new. 
Evolving, re-forming without intermission 
" As played upon by the surrounding condition.'* 
Then " Like produced un like " without hesitation, 
Earthy atom transformed into rich vegetation. 
Animalculae left their aquatic abode. 
And into the Forests by thousands they strode. 
Frogs changed into birds at the voice of the Sirens, 
And everything living "changed with their environs." 
The Lichens from every restriction then broke. 
And evolved both the Lepidodendron* and Oak. 
'Twas a wonderful time and a wonderful sight 
To see how each day brought new objects to light. 
The stratified rock the strange story relates. 
How the " Invertebrata "* begat Vertebrates ; 
And the ** Ichthyosaurus "* one night in a freak. 
Gave birth to the ** Mastodon ''* — (minus the beak), 

1 66 

While the tidy Acidian evolved from the Oyster, 
Emergfing somewhat like a monk from his cloister 
The Bear from the Mole in the past we descry, 
While the Bumble Bee came "by descent" from 

the Fly. 
Then the Lemur begat the grim Ape Catarrhine, 
From thence came the others ** in process of time." 
Their tails being " chaffed," became shortened, 

'till soon 
We arrive at the hairy-faced, tail-less Baboon. 
These quarrelled and fought in the Forests primeval, 
Impelled by an inherent spirit of evil. 
The Pentadactilians ignoring all trammels, 
Produced the most curious Terrestrial Mammals ; 
While the Porpoise and Sea-Horse plunged into 

the deep, 
Determined henceforward to water to keep. 
" By the use and disuse '* of their parts, as it suited, 
They wandered (to no spot particular rooted), 
One half the world took with the other to strive, 
'Till naught but the ** P^ittest " were found to 

** Survive." 
At last Man appeared ; but, amazingly strange ! 
From that moment the animals never could change. 
" Like " at last *' produced like," and the laws 

became fixed, 
Which explains why the Species since never got 


J. W. H. 
From " The Antt-In/idely* Marchy j88j. 

* These c^re fossil 9, and plants. 




A Popular Lecture provine Ihftt our Earth neither rotates upon its aril J 

nor ajound the Smi-— Delivered at Berlin by Dr. Shiepfer. 

Gentlemen, — One should be endowed with unlimited 
courage to dare come out before a large audience with proofs 
ot the erroneousnesK of a scientific formula which since our 
earliest youth we had been taught to regard as the only 
correct and unerring theory. I am pretty certain that at this 
mument you have come to the same conclusion about me, as 
four months ago, I would have entertained myself of any 
man who should have asserted that it is not the earth which 
revolves around the sun, but the sun which revolves around 
the earth. I would have considered such a man either an 
ignoramus or a lunatic ; nevertheless. I now consider the 
immobility of the earth an incontrovertible fact, and even 
hope that my convictions will be shared by those who 
without prejudice will reflect upon that which I will now 
impart to them. 

Some time ago we had the opportunity of witnessing 
the series of experiments with a pendulum which, according 
to the theory of the celebrated physicist, Leon Foucault, 
furnish proof of the diurnal rotation of the earth around its 
axis, I had long neglected to acquaint myself with these 
experiments, although, while explaining to my pupils the 
motion of the earth around the sun, I had always found very 
extraordinary results — absurd, I ought to say — one circum- 
stance pertaining to this motion with which you will acquaint 
yourselves in my present lecture. So firm was my conviction 
of the diurnal and annual revolutions of our globe (earth ?) 
that I had accepted even Foucault's experiments with the 
pendulum as sufficiently demonstrative. 

Meanwhile, I had been appointed to assist in the 
experiments, and, as they bear directly upon the subject in 
hand, I will briefly state in substance the results. 

If, choosing any given point in space near our globe, we 
imagine a limitless series of circles, then, in consequence of 
their parallel position to the equator, we term such series of 
circles parallels. 

From the exterior form of the earth we conclude that 
these circles go on diminishing as they near the poles. If 
we fancy two such circumterraneous parallels a3 dividing 
^^k auditorium, ihen the nQt^'he^u ^at9.\\e\ •«i'^\«i ^<;ftNss(. 


r " 





than the southern. In the rotation of the earth around- 
axis in 24 hours both parallels will have to accomplish the.- 
rotation in the same space of time; and as they comple%_ 
the circuit simultaneously, but the southern parallel islong**/ 
than the northern, then, consequently, every point of the 
southern parallel must move with greater velocity than tie 
like points of the northern. 

Let us now throw a glance on the apparatus called the 
pendulum, which is well-known to every one, but in the par- 
ticular case in point a very equivocal authority. It is easy to 
demonstrate that the arc of the vibration of the pendulum 
does not depend upon the change (Drehung) of the point of 
suspension. This undisturbed regularity of the vibration of 
the pendulum has served M. Leon Foucault as a proof of the 
rotation of the earth around its axis. If we cause such a 
pendulum to vibrate across the parallels which we are 
imagining to pass through our audience, then the arc of tlie 
vibration, as Foucault tells us will (not) change from the 
asial rotation of the emplacement, and will begin, in conse- 
quence of this, to gain in rapidity on the northern and less 
rapidly moving parallel, and will be out-stripped by the 
southern one, which moves quicker. In such a case, the arc 
of the pendulum will soon diverge from its direction from 
north to south, and its point turned to the north will near 
the east, and with the point turned south will begin more and 
more to near the west, till, finally, the pendulum will change 
its motion in the direction from east to west. 

Now the reason for a deviation of the pendulum has 
ceased ; it vibrates no more across two parallels, but only 
across one. The cause of its deviation from its first direction 
is removed ; it would then seem that the deviation itself 
ought not to take place any longer, but nevertheless it still 
continues. The pendulum abandons the east and west 
direction to approach with its points the southeast and 
northwest until it reaches its starting point, at which it must 
again deviate according to Foucaull's theory. 

As the pendulum does not preserve the direction from 
east to west, but always gets farther and farther away, I 
conclude that the deviation of the pendulum is not caused 
by the axial motion of the earth, but is due to some other 
motion yet unknown. 

By a series of carefiil experiments I have found that all 
pendulums are not liable to a deviation in the same degree; 
the heavier the ball, the more rapidly it will deviate. And 
as the rotation of the earth around its axis — if we admit JB 

1 69 

' ^istence — oug-ht to be manifested everywhere equally, then 

Jts deviation also, for every kind of pendulum, must be equal 
*n time ; but this in reality is just what is not the case. 

The conviction that Foucault's arguments were erroneous 
forced me to verify at the same time all other proofs which 
liave hitherto been regarded as demonstrating the rotation 
t)f the earth around its axis, and it was then I found that we 
had no evidence for such a theory. 

Already in antiquity Aristarchus of Samos and other 
philosophers, several centuries before Christ, affirmed that 
the stellar sphere is motionless, and that the daily rising 
and setting- of the stars can only be accounted for on the 
theory of the earth's rotation around its axis. But all these 
men, profound thinkers, had come to the above conclusion 
only from the fact that otherwise such an incredible rapidity 
of the celestial bodies as would enable them to accomplish 
a diurnal circuit around the earth could never be accounted 
for. Of course every one must agree with me that at the 
present moment such an argument would be regarded as 
very small proof Indeed, if we were able to take a little 
peasant boy from a country in which railroads were unknown 
and tell him of the existence of carriages which are able to 
make a mile in five minutes, of course he could never believe 
us ; such rapidity would seem incredible to him. He is 
ignorant that light travels with a velocity of 40,000 miles 
a second, and that the rapidity of electricity is still more 
considerable ! Thus, this argument with respect to the 
celestial bodies whose nature is as yet so little understood, 
and the path of whose motion is a vacuum or in a space 
filled with attenuated matter is only assumed or guessed at 
Upon the strength of an hypothssis — that these bodies 
cannot have such a velocity of motion as to be able in 
twenty -four hours to circumscribe the earth — such an 
argument, to make us reject the possibility of the rotation 
of the celestial sphere, is certainly weak and futile. 

But the contrary position, the one commonly accepted, 
also proves untenable when we look into it carefully. 

It was found in the measurement of the earthly meridians 
that the globe is flattened towards the poles, and that in 
consequence of this, the equatorial diameter ia greater than 
the line which passes through the axis of the earth from one 
pole to the other. Man, who endeavours to penetrate into 
all the mysteries of nature, tried to find the reason for such 
a flatness, and then comes Newton and explains it by the 
rotatory motion of the globe, In con^^c^d^tfe oi ■aaii^ 





of the earth, and especially 

potation all the componer 

l-the bodies to be found upon its surface, receive an impulse 

^to abandon the earth. Such an impulse is then named the 

centrifugal force. 

At the poles, where the rapidity of motion is equal to 0, 

th?.t force is also equal to O ; further from the poles to the 
I equator that force increases in ratio with the increase of the 
liparallels, so that the greater the parallel is, the more rapidly 
I as 1 have already said, must move each of its points. In 
I consequence of this, they say, the greater part of the eardi's 

■ mass is gravitating toward the equator; and for the same 

■ reason, the centripetal force, acting on the equator with 
I greater intensity, compels the concentration there of the 
fcgreater portion of the mass. Hence it is finally concluded 
Kithat the earth must forcibly rotate around its axis, because 
f were there no such rotation there would be no centrifugal 
I force, and without such a force there would exist no graviU- 
r tion toward the equatorial diameter or zone. 

I We have laid before you now one of the existing 

I evidences of the rotation of the earth, I do not accept such 

■ an argument, but reject it with many other scientists who 
f have discarded it before myself. 

r Therefore, gentlemen, until we have more weighty 

I argument to explain satisfactorily the accumulation of the 
[ mass of the earthy matter on the warmer zones, I cannot 
I undertake to accept as a reason for it a certain centrifugal 
force, appearing as a consequence of the motion of the earth 
around its axis, and I will not allow the hypothesis, were it 
but because I know beforehand to what inexplicable contra- 
dictions this centrifiigal force would bring us. Some of these 
I will point out presently. 
[ We must now consider the fourth and last evidence of 

I the rotary movement of the terrestrial globe. 
I In 1867, M. Richer remarked that a clock of his, which 

I kept good time in Paris, having been transferred to Cayenne, 
[ i.e., five degrees north of the equator, began to lose two and 
a half minutes daily. Richer had to shorten the rod of the 
pendulum one and a quarter lines to make the clock go right- 
It is well-known that the time of the vibration or rapidity of 
a pendulum increases with the diminution of its length, and 
is arrested proportionately with the elongation of the rod, 
I Later it was ascertained that such a retardation happens also 
[ when the clock is carried on a high mountain. As the 
L vyfirati'oij of the pendulum is based on the laws of falling 
woiliea, and the fall of the bodies \lae\t4e'peT\5k&Q'^\Uftlt weight 

or otherwise, on the attraction of the earth ^fitwas but 

natural to conclude that if the vibration of the pendulur 
not the same everywhere, and the attraction of thd earth 
varies, then this affords us conclusive evidence that the cause 
of the retardation of the vibrations of the pendulum is 
certain centrifug^al force, which develops with the motion 
the earth around its axis, and that it is this force, which, 
arrests the swing of the pendulum by decreasing its weight. 
But such a conclusion is erroneous j and we could far better 
admit the following conclusion, at which many of our phy- 
sicists now have arrived — the attraction of the earth diminishes 
with the recession of the body from its centre, which serves 
at the same time as the centre for all the attractive force of 
the globe. 

And what if the cause of the retardation of the vibration! 
of the pendulum at the equator and on high niountaini 
should prove quite different from what is now generally 
supposed? What if the cause is not at all the decrease of 
the force of attraction (whether from the reces.<!ion of the 
object from the centre of the earth or centrifugal force), but 
on the contrary, its increase, proceeding from the accumula- 
tion of bulk at the equator, in which case the force of 
attraction increasing, increases at the same time the weight 
of the body, and in the pendulum the weight of the ball? 
There is one fact not known to all physicists, I believe, > 
nameJy, that the rapidity of the vibrations of a pendulunjl 
depends not only on the length of its rod, but also on the^ 
weight of the ball itself. It might be even more correct to 
express it thus ; the velocity of the motion of the pendulum 
depends chiefly on the weight of its ball. When I elongate 
the rod of the pendulum I force the ball to move on a longer 
level, and increase thereby its own weight ; I can also,, 
without elongating the rod, increase its weight by othei 
means; the result will be the same. Thus, for instance, 
everyone is aware that even people unacquainted with scieu' 
when their clocks are running too fast, and they wish to ma 
the pendulum vibrate slower, attach to the ball either a sioni 
or a small bit of iron, and thus attain their object. Thi 
physicists have made very exact experiments in this directionj 
They found that a pendulum having a uniform length of rf 
oaakes 20,000 vibrations — ■ 

se ^ 


ball attached to it weighing 2 k,g 

1,977 seconds. 




^^* tei 


lerefbre the greater weight of the ball theslower 

vibration of the pendulum. From these experiments, con- 
ducted with the greatest precautions and published in the 
" Comptes Rendns de t Academie Frimcaise," tome xxL, 
p.p. 117-134, it appears : 1. That the laws of Galileo are nit 
quite exact as to the vibrations of the pendulum ; 2. That 
the explanation of the retardation of the pendulum on the 
equator by the decrease of the force of attraction of the 
'earth is evidently false; 3. That even the universally 
accepted laws of the gravitation of bodies are not sufficiently 
exact ; and 4. That, in general, the means employed toward 
discovering the laws of nature with the help of calculations 
is not only being proved unreliable, but it serves but the 
more to darken the truth. 

You will have seen from the last two arguments, whidi 
have hitherto served as evidence of the rotation of the earth, 
that as the result of such a rotation was assumed a centri- 
fugal force. Its presence was vainly sought for in the 
currents of the ocean, as well as in those of the air. And, 
indeed, it is not easy to explain how or on what principle 
the air — this soft, yielding incompressible body, agitated by 
various currents — could have remained unaffected by the 
rotation of the terrestrial globe. If the greatest physicists 
admit that hard bodies are influenced by such a rotation, 
then it appears, it will not be too bold on my part to 
maintain that the rotation of the earth around its asis 
should inevitably exert an influence on the air. This 
influence should be shown first of all in that, during the 
rotation of the earth from west to east, there would appear 
immediately an atmospheric current from east to west. 

Indeed, if the earth, together with its atmosphere, 
■rotates in a completely empty space, then in every case it 
light be possible to admit that the earth rotates without 
_iroducing any influence on the atmospheric ocean. But 
l&gainst the theory of such a vacuum we have the very 
.Quality of the air. 

The air, as much as we know of it, has such a great 
tendency toward expansion that aHthe hitherto worked out 
laws of gravitation have remained foreign to it. Were the 
most exterior, the most rarefied layer of air not to encounter 
on itM way any obstacle toward its expansion in the shape 
of a new planet, it would scatter itself throughout the whole 
universe, moving farther and farther into the infinite space; 
the particles of the air nearer to this layer would follow its 
'.ample, and, finally, the sqcis w4 xi.N^'Cii q^ ^Ke terrs 


his, ^^ 
cur ^^\ 


n ^^ 


f^lobe. all the water would take part in sueh a process of 
expansion, to disappear at last from the face of the earth. 
(We produce first just such a phenomenon with the help of 
an air pump). On the ground that buch a thing does not 
exist in fact, we must suppose that there is some retaining 
cause, which according to custom, we will term Ether. 
Counteraction to the evaporation of the air consists in this, 
that it forces every upper layer to press upon the next lower^ 
causing by such a progressive pressure the condensation < 
that layer of the atmospheric air which is next to us. 

If such an ether exists in reality, then there must occur 
in the atmosphere those phenomena so familiar to us, which 
always take place in cases when the air encounters obstacles 
to its free motion. Let the earth rotate, then all the atmos- , 
phertc space, on the ground of the attraction of the earth, ■ 
ivill be compelled to participate in the movement, and theJ 
Consequence will be that the upper layers of the air, finding! 
a resistance in the ether, will either be retarded, or — which! 
would be thr same — assume a seeming current in a direction I 
opposite to that of the earth's motion. Such a current o£% 
the upper stratum of the air would provoke a resistanci 
the next lower one, and this one, in its turn, receiving the 
impulse communicated to it by the upper one, would offer a 
resistance to its next lower neighbour, etc. Finally these 
two opposite currents, intermingling in their onward impulse, 
■would form two streams — one from east to west, in which 
would participate, first, the whole atmospheric ocean world, 
and then the contents of all the watery basins ; the other 
from west to east, into which would be drawn the very core 
uf the terrestrial globe. 

But let us make another supposition, and notwithstand- 
ing the impossibility, let us admit that there is no ether; 
that ether is no more nor less than the product of those 
endless hypotheses in which man has entangled himself 
from the first in his efforts to investigate nature; even in 
the latter case it w'ill not be a difficult task to prove that the 
rotation of the earth must cause the current of the atmos- 
phere to take an opposite direction, On what ground did 
our physicists base their suppositions when telling us that 
we don't feel the rotation of the earth f How do they explain 
the circumstance that objects on its surface are neither upset 
nor fallf ITiey point to the laws of inertia. Very well! 
I agree with them ! I agree only the belter to vanquish my 
adversaries with their own weapons, as I have hitherto 
ws done. You are probably aware that motion can ba i 


imparted to any substance, but that a fluid or gfaseous body 
can be made to move only when it is imprisoned in a hard 
one. Air is a body which is more than any other disasso- 
ciated as to its component parts. Let us suppose that the 
.■«arth has communicated its movement to the layer of air 
-Tiext to the surface, and thus dragged it after her. This 
layer, perfectly separate and distinct from the next upper 
one unattached to it, is unable to communicate its motion 
to the other and upper layers. Hence these upper layers 
remain unaffected by the motion of the lower one, or what 
comes to the same, begin to assume a seeming rush (or 
current) from east to west, with a rapidity equal to the 
earth's rotation. Every point of the equator during the 
diurnal rotation of the earth crosses in the same lapse of 
time 1,250 feet, but in the direction opposite to that of the 
earth's rotation. But such a rapidity of the atmospheric 
currents is nowhere to be seen, and it exceeds ten times the 
speed of the most terrible hurricanes. 

1 do not belong to those who accept their own conviction 
of an east and west atmospheric current for a real and 
already demonstrated fact. And yet all the modern 
physicists, scientifically convinced of the absolute necessity 
for the existence of such a current, have accepted it as a 
fact, resulting from the earth's rotation around its axis, 
although al! their efforts to find it anywhere in nature have 
been in vain. Even the fiassa/es, explained for a certain 
time by the same rotatory motion of our globe, deprived at 
the present moment of iheir once famous periodicity, are 
now being accounted for a great deal more simply, to wit, 
by the different degree of heat in the upper envelope of the 
terrestrial globe. 

We have but to represent to ourselves, in thought, all 
the various atmospheric currents, at one time weakening, 
at another increasing, and moving in every imaginable 
direction, called by us sometimes winds, sometimes tempests \ 
we must imagine these winds running very often in direct 
opposition to each other's course, and then ask ourselves the 
question : Is there any possibility that such currents could 
exist when the air is at the same time forced to passively 
follow the simultaneous rotation of the earth around the sun 
and its own axis f Is it possible to admit that in case such 
currents existed in nature, our atmosphere would at the 
same time continue the constant and faithful satellite of our 

earth r 

w l^here^re the circumstance tl:iat t\\e Totat\ot\ q^ ■Cft& s 


UrCHind its axis is not at all felt by us; that other dreum* 
stance, that this rotation has never been in any form or 
manner satisfactorily proved, and cannot be proved ; the 
absence, finally, in nature, of those atmospheric currents 
which in all justice ought to be found as a consequence of 
the rotation — all this serves us as a refutation of the theory 
of the rotation of the earth around its axis, perfectly con- 
vincing, if it were only because we do not possess a single 
evident proof in favour of the rolatioti. 

Is it not a cause of wonder that the savants of the whole 
civilised world, beginning with Copernicus and ending with 
Kepler, first of all accept such a rotation of our planet, and 
then for three centuries and a half after that seek for it some 
proof? But, alas! they seek, and as was to be expected, 
find it not. All in vain ; all unsuccessful ! 

To prove the impossibility of the second proposition, 
(>., the revolution of the earth around the sun, will present 
no difficulty. We can bring self-evident proof to the 
contrary. The earth revolves around the sun and is retained 
in its orbit by the strength of the solar attraction, and these 

j propositions contradict, point blank, the fundamental law of 
gravitation itself It is known to everyone that the direction 
of the weight is perpendicular to the wall, otherwise the 

I grain of dust would fall. In the same way the direction of 
the weight of our planet must be perpendicular to the sun, 
as to the centre of its attraction. But such, in fact, is not 
the case at all. The direction of the earth's weight is not 
only not perpendicular, but even changes with every 

In order to prove the correctness of my observation, we 
will now examine more carefully the modern theory of the 
annual rotation of the earth around the sun, and we will 
examine it under the aspect in which it is treated in the 
scientific works that discuss this subject. To explain the 
change of seasons, in other words to demonstrate the solar 
ecliptic, the scientists have assumed the following position : 
The earth's asis inclines to its orbit at an angle of 66^^ j 
this angle is preserved by the earth during the whole time 
of its rotation around the sun, i.e., the axis ol the earth is 

I parallel to itself at every point of its transit. We can make 
this theory approximately clear to ourselves by the following 
illustration : Taking this candle for the sun, we will now 
revolve around it this little globe, so that, by a simple 

K:al experiment, we may form fci: ovksi^n^?, ^l.w xftjaa. 
3 /burseasons take place l^iiS.a'i^-;a.'n\ \ ^^kW^'sS^ 





tiere dntne diagram we can plainly see that the axis o^he 
earth does not change its position with relation to the earth's 
orbit during the whole time of the earth's rotation, i.e., it 
remains parallel to itself. It is only by conceding this that 
we can explain the four seasons of the year. To this point 
the modern theory appears perfectly satisfactory, but if we 
examine it more carefully, its inconsistency will become 
evident. Thus I will now touch at once that incomprehen- 
sible and, at the first glance, unobserved circumstance, 
which has always appeared to me absurd, whenever I had 
to explain to my audience the rotation of the earth around 
the sun. 

As it would be absurd to suppose that the sun, during 
the yearly revolution of the earth, in its turn daily circum- 
scribes the earth, modern theory, to meet the necessity of 
the case, has to suppose that the terrestrial globe, while 
rotating yearly around the sun, turns daily around its own 
axis in the direction from west to east. But such two 
simultaneous rotations are, as we shall directly see, perfectly 
inadmissable. During the interval from the 21st of June to 
the 22nd of September such two simultaneous motions 
coincide well enough, but from the 22nd of September 
onward, and bacli to the 21st of June, the juxtaposition of 
such two motions carries us on directly to a perfect 
absurdity ; it would follow that the terrestrial globe, rotating 
diurnally around its axis from west to east, moves onward 
in a direction quite the opposite. But I believe that 
everyone is aware that a moving body, according to the 
nature of its rotary motion, either receives an impulse 
forward, or, on the contrary, the impulse forward directs its 
rotary motion. Consequently, if the terrestrial globe rotates 
from west to east, then it must also proceed onward in the 
same direction, and, in case of a sudden appearance of some 
new force, compel the earth to deviate from its primal 
direction, the force which makes the earth to move around 
its axis must (if it is the stronger) either overcome the 
newly manifested force or be destroyed by it. 


If we compare the two halves (or parts) of the terrestrial 

levolution around the sun. to wit, the semi-revolution from 

W to O, through B, with the semi-revolution from O to W, 

through A, we find that, from W to O, the direction of the 

rotation agrees to a certain point with the direction of 

the motion, and from O to W it is directly opposite to its 

onward motion. This will best be seen if we rotate this 

sphere around the lighted candle in the same manner as 

represented for the earth as Fig. i. In order to explain 

such a strange contradiction we ought to suppose that, 

during the revolution of the earth around the sun, the 

direction of the terrestrial weight is also changed, but this 

would amount to an absurdity, and something in direct 

contradiction to the accepted formula, that the direction of 

the terrestrial weight depends on the sun, as on a body 

which keeps the earth in its orbit. Fig. 2 will explain the 

whole still plainer. If the globe, e, is compelled to rotate 

towards O, in the direction pointed to by the hand, and move 

Onward from a to d, and from rf to c, then, in its motion from 

W to O, it must have the direction of its weight on the line 

a, 6, and in its motion from O to W, on the line c, d, to wit, 

in the first case, have its weight directed downward, and in 

the second case upward. Although in the universal space 

there exists neither an up nor down, the question itself is 

Utiaffected by that circumstance. Presently we will return 

once more to this question, and prove that such an incessant 

change of the direction of the terrestrial weight is in direct 

contradiction with science. 

According to the now prevailing modern view, the earth is 
kept within its orbit by the force of the sun's attraction. But 
even this proposition contradicts the assumption of the dual 
rotation of the earth, unless we make such allowances as will 
contradict all our scientific notions, for it is impossible to 
imagine to ourselves two simultaneous motions of the terres- 
trial globe around its axis, and around the sun, in agreement 
with the change of years and thatof the seasons, during which 
the direction ofthe terrestrial weight would beconstantly turned 
toward the sun, as we ought to find it were the earth sup- 
ported in its orbit by the force of the attraction of the sun. 
It is supposed that in every circuitous motion there are two 
forces in action. For instance, if we attach a ball to a string 
and swing it around so that the cord will be extended out 
straight, then the one force, which tends to project the ball 
in a straight line from the centre, is named centrifugal force, 
^■^d;)ie Other, contained in the very cord, vt,&elf., ?A\'ci'«^ ■*, j 

tendency to draw back the ball toward the centre round 
which it revolves, and is called centripetal force. During 
the simultaneous activity of both the forces the ball cannot 
move on a dirrct line on which both forces tend to move it, 
but is forced to adopt a movement in the direction of a 
diagonal, and from the union of an infinite number of such 
diagonals, it begins moving in a circle. 

If we examine a little more carefully this circuit-motion 
of the ball, we will find it anything but complex. That point 
of the ball to which is attached the cord, i.e.^ near which acts 
the centripetal force developed by my hand, lies on that side 
of the ball which is directed to the centre of the movement, 
i.e., in the direction of the hand, and, if the ball had a pro- 
pensity at the same time to assume a motion around its axis, 
then the latter would find itself at the same spot where the 
thread is tied, and this given point on the ball ought to 
remain turned toward the hand. That which is law for one 
body is law for all other bodies, placed in the same conditions 
as the first. The moon — the only heavenly body so close to 
our planet as that we can observe it in detail — is placed, in 
relation to her revolution around the earth, under precisely 
the same conditions as the ball we are now examining is, in 
relation to the point where the thread is fixed. Let us fancy 
the ball as the moon, the hand as the earth, and the thread 
as the terrestrial attraction, invisible in reality, but acting 
like the thread, and we will see that the moon is turned 
toward our globe always on the same side, for the force of 
attraction has deprived it forever of the slightest possibility 
to effect any change in the direction of the weight and 
rotation around its axis. Why, then, not derive from the 
laws of motion regulating the moon, a very close deduction 
for our own planet ? Indeed if the terrestrial globe revolves 
around the sun, and is kept in suspension in its orbit through 
the attraction of the sun, then this globe, as well as the 
moon, must find it impossible to rotate around its axis. In 
such a case, the one side of the earth would be constantly 
lighted by the sun, while the other would find itself in per- 
petual darkness. But we see no such thing, therefore we 
must infer that the modern explanations of the movements 
of our planet around its axis and the sun are devoid of the 
least probability, and disagree entirely with the exigencies of 
Perhaps we might suppose that the terrestrial globe 
occupying a. central position, revoWes m ^vjeuta-iour hoiu3' 
^ound its axis, while the sun desciibea aTvtvuaXV'^ bS« " 

K tioi«a 1 

tnat circle which is shown by the ecliptic. But there is no 
room for such a supposition until the rotation of the earth 
itself around its axis is demonstrated on more solid proofs ; 
and, besides, as I have shown, it is the contrary, which can 
be most easily proved. The immobility of our planet is 
chiefly maintained by me on the principle that we cannot 
find in Nature any constant atmospheric current always 
running from east to west. On the same principle, if our 
planet revolved around the sun, its whole atmosphere ought 
to be retarded and forced in a direction contrary to the 
forward motion of the earth, and would have to follow our 
planet like a long tail, as we see in the case of comets. Of 
whatever substance may be the tail of the latter, we are 
forced to examine it as the atmosphere of these as yet but 
little known bodies, and if the comets themselves travel in J 
the universal space, then their atmosphere is compelled to <H 
follow them in the shape of a luminous tail. V 

Finally, let us return once more to the law of gravitation 
in order to demonstrate conclusively that the rotation of the 
earth around its axis and the sun is an utterly improbable 
hypothesis. A little further back, while repeating to you in 
substance the theory now thoroughly accepted of the earth's 
revolution, I have shewn that, as the theory now stands, the 
position of the terrestrial weight must inevitably be shifting 
at every second. Out of this would result the following : If 
the sun really retains the terrestrial globe in its orbit, then 
the direction of the terrestrial gravity must constantly tend 
from the centre of the earth toward the point fixed on its 
surface at that side which is turned to ihe sun; on this point 
acts, immediately, all the centripetal force proceeding from 
the sun, and, therefore, as in the instance of the moon when 
the centre of all the lunar gravity is concentrated on that side 
of her which is turned to us, it is to this point that.must gravi- 
tate alt the weight of the terrestrial globe as all the weaker 
and lighter bodies. But our experiments show to us quite 
the contrary: the centre of the earth's gravity does not 
change in the least, and placed in its middle, depends only 
on the terrestrial mass ; no outward force of the kind of the 
sun's attraction is able to affect it any way, or can force it to M 
displace itself. And if so, then do not such facts prove fully I 
and clearly [i) that the terrestrial globe is not kept in its 1 
orbit by the sun's attraction, because such an enormous force 
could not but affect the point where is concentrated the centre 
of the earth's gravity ; and [2) that the centre of tUe ea.t%.ti. \i. 
at the same time the centre of its ■weV^'hX, atvi a\5*i '^^ iwu-^^xt 


of all the visible universe ? Of course, I do not reject entirely 
the influence on our planet not only of the attraction of the 
sun, but also of the moon, but I only maintain that the force 
of their attraction is not so powerful as to influence, in any 
serious way, the solid portions of terrestrial body, when we 
find that even with fluid and gaseous bodies, especially such 
as the air, this influence is felt but to a very feeble extent. 
If the attraction of the sun is so trifling that it can act but in 
quite a slight and to us as yet not quite clear manner on 
fluidic bodies, then we have still less reason to suppose that 
such a weak force could neutralize the centrifugal force of 
the earth and keep it in its orbit. For such an effect as this 
a force of gigantic proportion would be required — a force 
under whose action all the terrestrial atmosphere would long 
since have been carried off to the sun, in the same way as 
the force of attraction of the terrestrial globe is ever ready to 
attract to itself every just-forming lunar atmosphere. 

Let us now see what changes would be called for in the 
same department of astronomy were my assertions to be 
some day verified, and it should be found that the earth is 
motionless, and occupies the central position of the visible 
universe. Such changes would be in some respects impor- 
tant, in others unimportant. They would chiefly consist in 
our henceforth regarding the hitherto seeming motion of the 
heavenly bodies as a real motion, as the astronomer Tycho 
de I^rahe did before. He maintained that the earth stands 
still in the centre of the universe, and around it, as around 
its natural centre, moves diurnally the whole heavenly 
sphere; the moon and the sun in addition to the above 
motion describing around the earth independent movements 
on special curves, while Mercury with the rest of the planets 

describes an epicycloid I may also add that the 

position assumed by our scientists who consider the fixed 
stars as suns of the same nature as our own, and all the 
other planets as bodies identical in substance with our earth, 
will be found to be without foundation. Such a theory is 
irrational, if it were only because of the principles on which 
are based the determination of circumferences and weights 
of the celestial bodies. The weight of the sun, for instance, 
was determined in accordance with the amount of the 
expression of its imaginary attractive force on the surround- 
ing planets. As soon as it is found that the sun must 
surrender its office of principal star and become simply a 
planet revolving around the eartVv, directly depending on 
tAe force of the Jatter's attraction, a\\ ipTev\o\)i?» c^c^J\a^IwoSk 

will naturally be proved erroneous. The sizes of the 
heavenly bodies have been determined on no less false 

I Who but is more or less acquainted with that pheno- 

1 menon which shows us an object diminishing- in proportion 
to the distance, so that if an object is placed at a distance 
which exceeds 5,000 times its diameter, the human eye is 
unable to see that object ? It is on the basis of this law 

I that the sizes of all the heavenly bodies have been calcu- 
lated. According to their seeming size and the ratio of 

I their distance from the earth, science has endeavoured to 
determine the number of times that their real size surpasses 
their seeming one. But in determining by that principle 

\ our scientists have neglected to consider one of the most 
important points; they forget that the law which makes 
objects apparently diminishing in proportion to theirdistance 
from the observer does not affect luminous bodies ; the 
brighter the light of the body the longer its bulk will remain 
unchanged in our sight, whereas an object but faintly lighted 
becomes invisible, as I have said, at a distance which 
exceeds its diameter 5,000 times. If the said law extended 
to luminous bodies, then a flame one inch wide could not be 
seen at the distance of 225 yards, whereas we know from 
experiment that the size of its apparent bulk does not change 
even when the candle is carried to a distance of several 
thousand yards. As the sunlight is extremely bright, the 
bulk of the sun must therefore seem unchangeable at an 
extremely long distance, and IT IS VERY POSSIBLE 
TANCE. Besides that, it is not only possible but a great 
deal more plausible to accept the assumption that the laws 
which shew to us an object diminishing with the distance 
are applicable only to our own dense atmosphere which 
surrounds us, and are not operative in a medium so rare as 
that of the upper spheres. When, after a clear and cold 
night, the vapours of the air are drawn down to the earth, 
and the rising sun illuminates the air cleared from the mist, 
then the mountains, the villages, the environs and edifices, 
at other times hardly delineated in the blueish atmosphere, 
suddenly rise before our eyes as if growing up by enchant- 
ment ; they seem nearer and allow us to examine the 
slightest details of their structure. In this case the law of 
the diminution of objects is evidently changed. And there 

K ether, in that attenuated maXVet — Qt xa.'C^xe.T \fe^.^J.■9.^■^i^:^ 

^^^ sc. 


Bpeak of ether as empty space — in this vacuum of tte 
universe how can these laws be ever applied } Generally 
speaking, as far as I know from personal experience, the 
science of optics is not quite accurate, the sight of the human 
«ye is more or less influenced by the purity of the atraos- 
iheric air 

Equally erroneous will be found all the determinations 
wf distances of the fixed stars, once that we have to regard 
■the earth as fixed. According to the now accepted and 
"wholly dominant theory, on the 2i&t of December the earth 
is 40,000,000 miles (185,000,000?) from the point at which it 
stood on the a 1st of July (June ?). On these same dates, 
with the help of the telescope, directed to one and the same 
point of the heavens, is observed a certain star which crosses 
the meridian in the same direction and in the same point of 
the heavens. It results then that a distance of 40,000,000 
miles (185,000,000 ?) counts as nothing in our comparison of 
the distance of the observed star ! But even such an evident 
proof of the recision of the fixed stars from the earth loses 
certainly all its weight if we assume the earth to be 

And now, gentlemen, allow me to lay before you one 
more contradiction, which, had it been insisted upon bdbre, 
might have shewn to our scientists long ago the erroneous- 
ness of our astronomical calculation. It was found from th* 
determination of the sun's attraction that every body whicb 
exerts on the terrestrial globe a pressure of one pound 
exerts on the sun a pressure of 27 pounds. If all bodies act 
on the sun with such an increased pressure, it would then 
seem that the mass of the sun ought to be likewise and in 
the same proportion more compact than the terrestrial mass, 
i.e., it would consist of a more dense matter; and yet, ^ 
comparing the calculations of the weight with those of Hw 
circumference of the sun, it has been found that the sun'* 
matter is just four times less in density than the substance 
out of which the earth is formed. The result, then, wouM 
be that one and the same body would weigh on the aui 
27 times more than when on earth, and its weight would act 
on the sun 108 times more than it would on our planet; and 
yet the substance of the sun would present but -^ of a part 
of the density of the matter of the terrestrial globe! Thi*i 
I must say, is incomprehensible to me, and I view such a 
theory as the result of correct calculations based on a false 

/ also deny the existence of the atmosphere on i 

ere on^^^l 


A heavenly body crossing the univei 

with a velocity hardly comprehensible cannot be possessed 
of an atmosphere similar to the air of our earth. And here, 
as before, the moon — a planet with the qualities with which 
we are best acquainted — ^jifives us a fully correct compre. 
hension, or rather it corroborates all that is shown to us by 
the natural laws. The moon has no atmosphere, and, there- 
fore, there is but little probability that the other planets 
would have any more than she has. Ail the observations 
tending to show that the moon must have an atmosphere 
are based, no doubt, on equally erroneous principles ; they 
could be accepted with any degree of certainity only when 
the experimenter could be carried beyond the atmosphere of 
the earth, or, at the least, when we should build our observa- 
tions on the summit of Dhawalaghiri. The outer services of 
the bndy of the sun, moon and other planets cannot be 
simitar in appearance to the surface of the terrestrial globe ; 
they must consist of strongly compacted matter, such as we 
see sometimes in the substance of the frequently falling 
aerolites. All the non-solid bodies, the strata of the earth, 
and the rocky portions would be torn off and precipitated on 
the earth by the force of its attraction. Thus, on the ground 
of these premises, the assumption that some of the planets 
may be inhabited is void of any probability and has Co pass 

into the realm of fiction 

Man, while determining the distance of the stars most 
important to us, on the strength of an imaginary' rule of 
distance and falsely applied laws of the diminution of objects 
in proportion to their recession, began to calculate the size 
of the^e stars, and, astonished at their dimensions, mistook 
the fixed stars for bodies similar to our sun, and our earth 
for a very unimportant portion ot the whole universe. Arrived 
at the latter conclusion, it very naturally appeared absurd to 
him that all these powerful, all these gigantic an numerous 
celestial bodies should revolve around our little globe, obey 
it, and submit to its desires. At that time appeared a new 
hypothesis : the earth is not motionless, it revolves around 
itself and around the sun. This theory is accepted as the 
correct one, and step after step are now built new suppositions, 
new combinations deduced from the union and combination 
of imagination with correct mathematical calculations. 

Here I end my dissertation, although it would be but 
an easy matter to point out a great many more contradictions 
on which rests the modern theory which I now combat 
and. is opposed to mine, We cannot help desiring and 


hoping that perchance there may be found at least one 
astronomer who, armed with all the weapons of modern 
speculative science and its appartus, will undertake to 
re-create the whole system of Tycho de Brahe. The result 
of such an attempt would doubtless prove something scienti- 
fically grand. All that now under the Copernican system 
appears to us so incomprehensible and diametrically opposed 
to the fundamental laws of nature would be finally explained 
in the simplest and most rational way. We can now see 
how right was the venerated astronomer Bandes, when ex- 
pressing his opinion on Tycho de Brahe's system, he re- 
marked : " This theory presents in itself a great deal more 
of probability, as it explains so well all of the individual 
phenomena of nature." Unfortunately, Bandes was mistaken 
when he imagined that this system contradicted the laws of 
attraction. But I believe I have fully disposed of such a 
misunderstanding, and proved that it was not Tycho de 
Brahe's system, but that of Copernicus, which contradicts all 
the laws of gravitation. 

To add a few more proofs to our assumption we will say : 

1. That the form of the continents contradicts the theory 
of the rotation of the earth. If our globe were revolving 
around its axis, then the outlines of the continents ought to 
elongate themselves in a direction from east to west, when in 
reality this elongation of configuration extends from north 
to south. 

Besides that, the width of their northern edges arises 
fi-om the attractive force of the northern pole, and the points 
turned south from the repulsive force of the south pole. 

2. There are no fixed stars in the sense of this word, 
because it has* been observed that these stars, besides their 
diurnal revolution around the earth, perform independent 
circuitous movements. Vain have been all the efforts of 
the astronomers to find a central body whose force of 
attraction might account for the fact that these stars are 
kept within their orbits ; and such a body must exist some- 
where. This central body is our earth. May it not also 
explain the fact that the greater the accumulation of soil in the 
northern hemisphere the larger is the number of stars above? 

3. Various changes in the fixed sta;s have been often 
remarked, namely a change of colour or the intensity of 
light, and sudden appearance and as sudden disappearance 
of single stars — which does not at all agree with the 

assumption that they are as large and independent bodies 
as it has been hitherto supposed. 

^— — 1 

4. The similarity in the component parts of all the 
txieteorological masses, that is to say, of the bodies attracted 
by the force of gravity within the earth's atmosphere, gives 
tis chiefly some idea of composition of the mass of all the ^_ 
Heavenly bodies, and proves that they cannot be inhabitedr^H 
The greatest aerolites known to us had a diameter of 7 t<^^| 
7 J feet. ^ 

5. According to the exact researches of WilhelmMalman, 
in the middle latitudes of the temperate zone the prevailing 
atmospheric current appears to be W.S.W. Although 
^jfreeably with the law of terrestrial rotation the prevailing ^^ 
■winds ought to be found in those regions easterly, we se^^H 
the contrary and find them westerly. ^^M 

As my following work will tend to demonstrate ths^H 
agreement in the progression of the creation of the universe 
-with truth and fact, and taking into consideration that this 
pamphlet of mine (the only reasonable refutation of the 
earth's rotation) shows a similarity with the opinions of 
many scientists who preceded me, in conclusion I wish to 
quote a few words from Goethe. The poet, whose prophetic 
views remained during his life wholly unnoticed, said the 
following : " In whatever way or manner may have occurred 
this business, I must still say that I curse this modern theory 
of cosmogony, and hope that perchance there may appear 
in due time some young scientist of genius who will pick up 
courage enough to upset this universally disseminated 
delirium of lunatics," .... From the ^"^ Scientific Ajnerican" 
April 2-ith, iSyS. 


By JOHN DOVE, M.A. (1757). 

That Moses was acquainted with the most abstmsj 
mysteries of Nature is a truth denied by none but upstai' 

philosophers, who would revile him without having read a 
understood him. 

The three first chapters of Genesis contain a revelaticM 
of what otherwise would never have been known, i.e., the' 
first principles or rudiments of knowledge, natural and 
divine. But for the information recorded in those chapters, J 
rtiBhuman race had never known science or anything con^^H 

ceming the facts of creation. For we were "creS^a 
is nothing innate in us or derived from prior existences; 
language itself was given, not acquired. The philosopher 
who pleads for any other cause than a divine creation, simply 
writes himself down a fool. It is useless for the genuine 
truth-seeker to expect to derive information from those who 
will need write before they have read ; or from the com- 
mentators who will give every sense of the text but the true 
one ; or from the system-mongers who will cripple the whole 
Scripture to make it speak their sense; nor from the 
philosophers who believe they know better than the inspired 
historians, or argue that there is no certain standard of truth 
and that we were sent hither to grope in the dark or learn 
wisdom from our fellow worms, Moses affirms: "In the 
beginning God made the heavens and the earth " ; the 
philosophers maintain the eternity of matter, make a god of 
it, and bow down to the idol they have set up, and would, 
like Nebuchadnezzar, put everyone in a furnace who refuses 
obedience to their decrees ! To listen to their description of 
gravity, attraction, centrifugal and centripetal forces, it 
would carry the appearance of a romance. Did any man 
yet ever understand Sir Isaac Newton's philosophy ; or will 
any man undertake to prove the truth of it ; His warmest 
advocates have acknwledged "they had not all that evidence 
of its truth that they could desire"; because they have 
rejected the revelation of God, and have set up they know 
not what. They are incorrigible and will not be corrected. 
Therefore I quit them all and turn to the ecclesiastics, whose 
proper business it is to study and expound the Scriptures, 
But I have to tell them as well as the philosophers that in 
rejecting or doubting the book of Genesis, they stumble at 
the very threshold of their studies, and seldom or ever after 
recover themselves. If they understood or believed in Moses, 
they would possess more real knowledge than all their other 
learning can teach them. 

It is or should be a matter granted, that God and His 
works must agree ; therefore, he that fully understands any 
part of God's works of creation, as seen in the visible world, 
and can find in the account given of them in Moses, the 
Prophets or the Apostles any disagreement, has a right, as 
a rational creature to be a Deist; but if no such disagree- 
ment can be found, instead of a rational Deist, he must be 
a fool. And since it is truth, that philosophy and divinity 
are closely connected, and that an error in the former cannot 
^^ in producing an error in the \aUer ■, an4 svocfc wa s 



: philosophy, in any a^, hitherto proposed to mankind, 
besides that of Moses, was ever pretended to agree with 
Scripture, — it is not very extraordinary that no philosopher 
who pretended to have any respect for the Scriptures, has 
ever attempted to understand and compare the philosophy 
of Moses with the real and demonstrable facts of nature r 
Can it be for want of ability, or that they wilfully prefer 
falsehood to truth, in the hope or belief that others would 
do the same > If what Moses wrote was not the literal 
truth, why have not his mistakes been honestly pointed out 
by our gentlemen of science r Moses has given us a rational 
process of the creation, which is more than any one else 
has done, and more may be said of him than any other 
philosopher that ever lived, viz., that he has not made one 
mistake in the account he has given of nature ; all the 
others have scarce delivered one truth concerning it! Truth 
and falsehood can never be made to agree; therefore, all the 
experiments that the modern philosopher can make, will 
never make their system agree with truth or common sense ; 
but they all demonstrate the truth of the Mosaic account of 
Nature ! 

The revelation of (Jod is plain, not delivered in 
mysterious language, as is the modern philosophy, and, 
when understood, corresponds with right reason. Is it not 
therefore strange that so many disagreements of it should 
still subsist r For I cannot find that men in general know 
any more about it, than about the laws and language of the 
world in the moon, if such a world there be. 

In the two first chapters of Genesis, Moses has given a 
distinct and positive statement of the mechanical laws or 
operations by which nature rose into being by the hands 
of her omnipotent Creator, and by which her stupendous 
works are still carried on ; for nature came not into being" 
by chance or from any pre-existing condition ; nor was any'l 
fact stated which is not open to the examination of every! 
intelligent person, but which no man yet, has been able to 1 
overthrow or improve upon. 4 

But what a condition are we in at present? Not one I 
dignitary in Europe, that has learning or honesty enough tol 
determine the truth of these divine records ! Is it possible f 
to conceive that both Protestants and Papists have agreed to J 
let the people be under such delusions r An absolutely j 
correct and literal translation of the Hebrew Scriptures I 
would present to our view one uniform system of divi.i\e, J 
jnoral, and philosophica,] truth, tl:\a\ viio\i\<i ^[v's-^^ >i«at^ -.- 

E^m^mmg^wn scatters the darkness ot the TiigfA 
then, as all that truth which the faith of a Christian 
has anything to do with, is contained in Scriptures of 
Moses, the Prophets, and Apostles, whatever agrees not 
with those Scriptures is to be rejected, whether it re- 
lates to divinity or philosophy. For if in them we 
have false accounts of the Works of Crod, no man in his 
senses will or ought to believe they contain a revelation of 
God. What! Shall the God of truth not give us a true 
account of His own work ■ Shall the God of Nature deceive 
our senses.' God forbid ! For as we can know nothing of 
God but by His Works, nor of His Works, till they are 
apprehended by the senses He has given us, it is utterly 
inconceivable to suppose He should have endowed us with 
such senses as are only calculated to deceive us, or by giving 
a false account of the works of His own hand. 

If, in the language this revelation was originally made, 
our opponents can find but one philosophical mistake we 
will unreservedly yield up the whole for a cheat ! The 
translators and the whole group of commentators are herein 
to blame ; for they have all to a man been blinded by a false 
philosophy, and have resented every attempt to unshackle 
them ; whereby they have been bewildered in uncertainity 
and error, and have left their readers in darkness and bondage 
ever since. 

Are there any abettors of this heathen philosophy still 
amongst us ? Yes, ten thousand ; not only among the 
unlearned, but amongst our church dignitaries, our classical 
scholars and teachers ! All on account of their ignorance 
and unbelief. 

What will be the end of these things ! I am no conjurer ; 
but it is easy to determine what will be, from what has already 
taken place. It has been the fate of all kingdoms, nations, 
and people, from the beginning of time, upon their rejecting 
or perverting the revelation of God, to fall into anarchy, con- 
fusion and infidelity. The Bible is, as it deserves to be, the 
great charter of our liberty. The loss of the Scriptures, or 
swerving from, or perverting the doctrines or history con- 
tained in them, has invariably been attended with discomfiture 
and ruin, and always will ! And if their successors continue 
their resistance as they have done hitherto, it cannot fail to 
deluge the kingdom in atheism, destroying all social virtue, 
and turning it into a field of blood. 

The sj'stem the philosophers would establish is founded 
on n quicksand, on a spirit of fa\se\ioo4 a-cvi. \\e^ ■, '-Aa %'\^^ 

Xinhewn — its mortar untempered — and its joints all open to 
the weather ; when the winds blow, and the floods of 
opposition beat against it, it must tumble down and dis- 
a.ppoint the faith of those dupes who trusted in its strength ; 
because it is not founded nor erected according to, but 
against, the appointment and design of the Creator. The 
SScriptures contain the instructions of God, and show us the 
conditions, the ordinances, the laws which He hath ordained, 
I have to repeat, again and again, that the Scriptures 
and nature are connected, as will appear to any impartial 
inquirer; those who will not take the pains to study them 
both, will remain fools, whether I say so or not. The not 
attending to this connexion has been the cause of that 
contempt with which the Scripture has been treated. 
Suppose we view the dial plate of a watch, we see the hand 
point to the hour, by a mechanism to us invisible; but we 
find a book wherein the inward structure of the watch or 
clock is described ; we are at a loss whether to believe it or 
not ; we know not whether it be true or false. How then 
shall we prove its truth ! By taking the machine to pieces, 
and examining its works ; if the book and the machine 
exactly agree, and the former be an accurate description of 
the latter, the inference must be, that either the maker of 
the machine wrote the book, or revealed the mechanism 
of it to him who did. This is absolutely the case between 
the Bible and nature. And if this examination were firmly, 
and candidly, and intelligently carried through, the numbers 
of our foolish philosophers would soon be diminished, and 
their specious system utterly confounded. Moses and the 
Prophets never revealed the proper frame of a mouse -trap 
or the size of a bird cage, they knew the star gazers 
would not heed such trifles, nor find any credit in 
constructing such things. But Moses and the Prophets did, 
by the inspiration and dictation of God, reveal to mankind 
the framework and mechanism of nature, which must have 
remained for ever inscrutable, but for such direct revelation ; 
and which mode and plan of creation, when thus made 
known, appears true upon the highest demonstration the 
rational mind can demand ! 

Now for a coat of mail, to defend me from the tongues 
of scorpions, and the quills of porcupines, — a venomous 
serpentine brood, who besmear and befoul every divine and 
scriptural truth that runs counter to their almighty decrees. 
Let any man read those mystical and philosophical expostu- 
lations between God and Job ; or let him read over both 


I go 

Testaments^ and he shall find, if he reads attentively, that 
Scripture, all the way, makes use of nature, and hath 
revealed such mysteries as are not to be found in all the 
philosophers ; so that I fear not to say that nature is so 
much the business of Scripture, that the spirit of God, in 
those sacred oracles, seems not only to dwell on the 
restitution of man in particular, but even the redemption of 
nature in general, and is as jealous of the right understanding 
of the one as of the other. 

To speak then of God, without Nature, is more than we 
can do, tor he is not known in this way ; and to speak of 
Nature without God, is more than we may do ; for we should 
be robbing God of His glory, and attribute those eflFects to 
Nature, which belong only to God and to His spirit which 
works in Nature. No man can venture to complain ii we use 
Scripture to prove philosophy, and philosophy to prove 
divinity; because there is no divinity without nature, nor 
any true philosophy without God. It is a union insisted on 
by God, however objected to by man. 

If men would but take Mr. Locke's advice, and have the 
modesty to settle the limits of their understandings and 
determine what objects lay beyond, and what within their 
reach, they would not venture so often at things too high for 
them ; of if they had the humility to consult Moses, he would 
prevent much fruitless labour and correct much inexcusable 

Real ChriT^tian philosophy is a pure and ennobling study, 
exalting the mind, and lifting it above every sordid pursuit, 
above everything that is low, little, or mean. 


"^^las of Physical Geography. 
^%€, The 

^^son's Voyage round the World, 
^^tronomy, Six Lectures on 
"^^gus Annual, The 


^nerican Exporter. 

^swers to Planar Questions. 

Kit of Parliament. 

ige of Reason, The 

l^ostic Journal, The 

ntiquities of the Jews. 

nti* Infidel — App. 

^ible versus Science. The 
Belfast News Letter. 
Birmingham Weekly Mercury. 

Christian Million, The 

Ceylon Independent, The 

Chambers' Mathematical Tables. 

Chambers' Information for the People Knowledge. 

Chambers' Journal. 

Cowper, The Poet 

Cause of an Ice Age, The 

Cape Times, The 

Cape Argus, The 

Cruise of the Falcon, The 

Cook's Voyages. 

Christian World Pulpit. 

First principles of Natural Philosophy. 

Field, The 

Flood and Geology, The 

Future, The 

Fifty Scientific Facts. 

Freethinker, The 


Geological Journal, The 


Geologists, Errors of 


History of the Conflict between Re- 
ligion and Science. 
History of the Gr. Western Railway. 
Harper's Weekly. 

Journal of Society of Arts. 
Joshua's long day. 

Joshua commanding the Sun to stand 


London Journal, The 

Land of the Midnight Sun, The 

Lancet, The 

Liverpool Mercury, The 


Leicester Daily Post. 



Modern Science and Modern Thought 

by S. Laing. 
Modern Review. 
Mensuration by T. Baker, C.E. 
Million of Facts, A 
Mill, J. S. 

Engineer of P. W. D., Capetown. JJ°^? ^^F^^^ *^^« o^^« 
Encyclopaedia Britannica. $J"^^^ and Morals. 

Extracts from Rev. J.Wesley's Works. JJ"^®""?^^^^^^^^^^' , ,. , ,, 

Echo The Magnetism and Deviation of the 

Earth and its evidences, The ^^ net^m?^* 

F Magnetism and Electricity. 

Friend, Dr. W. Morning Leader. 

Figure of the earth* Muses, The 

Daily Chronicle, The 
Daily News, The 

Elementary Physiography. 
English Mechanic, The 
Earth not-a-globe Review. 
Errors of Geologists. 


N S 

Navigation by D. W. Barker and W. Science Siftings. 

AUingham. Science and Culture by Prof. Huxley. 

Nature and Man. Story of the Heavens, by Sir R. Ball. 

Natal Mercury. Standard, The 

New Principia, The South Sea Voyages. 

Noad's Lectures on Chemistry. Six Lectures on Astronomy. 

Nineteenth Century. Sun, Moon and Stars. 

Nautical Almanac. Scientific American. 

Navigation and Nautical Astronomy. Scraps. 
Navigation in Theory and Practice. Skellam, A. E. 
Navigation and Nautical Astronomy, Sun, The 

by Bergen. Story of the Solar System. 

Navigation, by Evers. 

Naval Science. ■ 

New-York Independent. Travels in the Air, by J. Glaisher. 

-. Triumph of Philosophy, by J. Gil- 

^ lespie. 

Our place among infinities, by R. A^heoretical Astronomy. 

OmooX' H . Melville. '^^^"'^^^ °° Astronomy, A. 

P V 

Principia, The, by Sir 1. Newton. Voyage of a Naturalist, by C. Darwin. 
Proceedings of the Royal Institute, Voyage towards the South Pole. 
Great Britain. %^ 

Popular Science Recreations. xxr * i-u • 4.- a j x t-l 

Paean Astronomv Western Chnstian Advocate, The 

Pollock N. H. Wonders of the Sun, Moon and Stars. 

Primer of Navigation, A 

Pearson's Weekly, ,, ,, ^ . ., , , 

Paul Petoff. " Yellow Frigate," by J. Grant. 

R z 

Recollections of Past hfe. Zetetic Astronomy, by Parallax. 

Reynold's Newspaper. 
Robinson's New Navigation and Sur-